.A> 



o 



ci-. 



'W 












,^" ''t.. . 






A CRITICAL STUDY 



OF 



NULLIFICATION 



IN 



SOUTH CAROLINA 



DAVID FRANKLIN HOUSTON, A.M. 

ADJUNCT-PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 
SOMETIME MORGAN FELLOW OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY 



NEW YORK 
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 

LONDON AND BOMBAY 
1896 









Copyright, 1896, 
By the President and Fellows of Harvard Collsgb. 



University Press : 
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U.S.A. 



PREFACR 



THE nullification movement with which this mono- 
graph deals derives its chief interest from the 
terrible issues of 1860-65, which were its logical out- 
come. The secession movement dates definitely from 
1824. In the period from 1824 to 1832 all the princi- 
ples that were fought for in the Civil War were formally 
enunciated in South Carolina, and a determination to 
apply them, if it should become necessary, was repeat- 
edly expressed. Secession became a subject of daily 
thought and conversation ; and familiarity with it bred 
contempt for its possible dangers. Further, in this pe- 
riod the bearing of the institution of slavery on political 
and economic issues became clearly recognized both in 
the North and in the South ; the fears of the South- 
erners for the safety of the institution were awakened, 
and their passions were raised to the highest pitch. By 
1832 the feelings of the majority of South Carolinians 
were alienated from the Union. The State remained in 
the Union, it is true ; but her ordinary attitude towards 
it from this time was one at least of indifference. Many 



vi PREFACE. 

of her wisest and most far-sighted citizens felt that the 
final struggle was only a matter of time, — only a matter 
of arousing the more conservative Southern States. 

The writer has not here undertaken to discuss nullifi- 
cation in all its aspects. It would have been extremely 
tedious to go over the ground that has been covered in 
a masterly way by the great constitutional writers and 
speakers of the past and present. His aim is principally 
to look at the movement from within, to trace its origin 
and development inside the boundaries of South Caro- 
lina, and to discuss the validity of the leading doctrine 
in the light of the precedents on which the nullifiers 
mainly relied and of South Carolina's earlier history. 
Most of the existing accounts of this subject are incom- 
plete and unsatisfactory, because their authors, writing 
from the outside, and as a part of a more general 
work, fixed their attention to an unwarranted extent 
on the doings of certain conspicuous public men from 
South Carolina, whose motives and conduct were 
assumed to be truly representative. The present writer 
has attempted to place these so-called leaders in their 
proper perspective, to trace the growth of popular 
feeling and to estimate its influence. While his attempt 
is not satisfactory even to himself, still he feels that the 
subject stands out in a truer light when viewed from 
within. His study of this particular movement from 
the point of view here indicated confirms his early 
impressions that many periods of American history 



PREFACE. vii 

must be rewritten after careful investigations have been 
made of tendencies and developments within particular 
States or groups of States. The results of this investi- 
gation seem to differ in several important respects from 
the conventional, accepted views, and are presented with 
due deference to possible criticism. Errors of fact and 
judgment will doubtless be pointed out, and will gladly 
be corrected. 

The materials on which the account is based were 
collected while the writer was a member of the Gradu- 
ate School of Harvard University, under the special 
oversight of Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, to whom 
many obligations are acknowledged. 

DAVID FRANKLIN HOUSTON. 



University of Texas, Austin, 
June 1, 1896. 



CONTENTS. 



PACK 



CHAPTER I. 

Broad Construction in South Carolina. 1789-1823 ... i 

CHAPTER II. 
Theories of the Constitution in South Carolina. 17 89-1 8 28 16 

CHAPTER III. 
Causes of Nullification. 1823-182S 33 

CHAPTER IV. 
South Carolina's Change of Attitude. 1823-1828 .... 53 

CHAPTER V. 
Formulas of Nullification. 1828-183 2 65 

CHAPTER VI. 
Progress of Nulufication Sentiment, i 828-1832 .... 86 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Issue Joined. 1832-1833 106 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Significance of Nullification 131 

APPENDICES. 

A. Calhoun's Statement OF his Constitutional Principles. 1842 143 

B. Ordinance Nullifying the Force Bill. 1833 . . . . 148 

C. Protest against a Protective Tariff. 1840 149 

D. Protest against the Tariff of 184 i. 1841 150 

E. Nullification Reaffirmed. 1842 151 

F. Protest against the Tariff of 1842. 1844 151 

G. Bibliography of Nullification 152 

Index 161 

ix 



A CRITICAL STUDY 

OF 

NULLIFICATI O N 

IN 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 



CHAPTER I. 

BROAD CONSTRUCTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 
1789-1823. 

The accepted accounts of the famous episode which influence of 
this monograph attempts to describe furnish evidence |xaggera"ed. 
of a tendency of American historians, in their study of 
our great poHtical movements; they lay undue stress on 
the personal element ; they pay much attention to indi- 
viduals and comparatively little to conditions. It is not 
difficult to comprehend why such should be the case. 
To observe the movements of the masses under favor- 
able conditions is by no means easy; it is impossible to 
follow them in a distant and crudely developed com- 
munity unaccustomed to record-keeping. The conduct 
of a man of marked individuality at the centre of the 
nation's political activities lies in stronger light, and 
every act appears to the observer to carry with it special 
significance. 

South Carolina, the centre of the nullification move- 
ment, has never laid herself open to the charge of 
extravagance in expending energy or money in making 

I 



BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 



[Ch. I. 



Illustrated in 
accounts of 
nullification. 



South 
Carolina 
to 1820. 



Object of the 
movement 
to prevent 
centralization. 



for posterity careful records of her own great deeds or 
those of her great men. She has been as backward in 
preserving records as she has been forward in furnishing 
acts worth recording. And during the period in ques- 
tion she was represented in the eyes of the nation by a 
man or^remarkably strong individuaHty. Hence, to 
every historian of the time the nulHfication movement 
has been Calhoun first, Calhoun last, and Calhoun all 
the time. One writer, for example, goes so far as to 
represent the movement as a petulant outburst of a 
schemer, soured and embittered by his disappointment, 
who preferred to be the first statesman in the Slave 
States rather than the second in the Union ; and who 
with singular ability addressed himself to the promotion 
of sectionalism.^ Without wasting time in criticising 
this misrepresentation, and others of its kind, we may 
proceed at once to consider the true character of the 
movement, — its causes, its progress, its effects. 

To execute this task properly, it is necessary to go 
back as far as 1789 and to notice briefly the course of 
federal legislation and the attitude of South Carolina 
down to about 1820, when an organized opposition to 
the course of the federal government began to make 
itself felt in that State. This review will serve as a 
background for the whole discussion ; for it will tend to 
make clear that the nullification movement, instead of 
being the outcome of personal spite or disappointment, 
was the natural result of an attempt of a central body to 
legislate for a country having two large sections whose 
social and industrial conditions were radically different. 

The nullification movement was set on foot to check 
what was believed to be the tendency on the part of the 
federal governinent to centralization, and to more active 
interference in every direction. The leaders in South 



1 J. W. Draper, Civil War, I. 381. 



1789] IMPORT DUTIES. 3 

Carolina were convinced that the policy already entered 
upon by the federal government was destructive to the 
interests of the South ; and they had no doubt that such 
a policy, if persisted in, would lead to the impoverish- 
ment of their section and to the disruption of all its 
institutions. They therefore began, about 1820, to Attack on 
organize their followers in opposition to every step that po°ic^y.*'^^ 
tended directly or indirectly towards centralization. 
Chief among the measures that gave evidence of such 
a tendency were those looking to the strengthening of 
the National Bank, the extension of internal improve- 
ments, and the raising of protective duties. Inasmuch 
as the protective policy seemed to be most aggressive, 
and most clearly and immediately harmful, it was selected 
as the principal point of attack. It is to the tariff policy 
of the federal government, therefore, and to the attitude 
of South Carolina thereon, that attention must first be 
called. 

South Carolina may fairly claim that her political South 
conduct has always been consistent at least in one opposition to 
direction, namely, in her opposition, not to import *^'^ policy, 
duties as such, or to high import duties, where the 
necessities of the treasury demanded them, but to high 
import duties laid for the sake of protection. To those 
who may be inclined to question this statement it may 
be necessary to point out that the statement is made, 
not of Calhoun, but of South CaroHna; for South Caro- 
lina and Calhoun did not always stand for the same 
thing. Against high import duties for the sake of pro- 
tection. South Carolina entered her protest in the very 
first Congress, and it has stood to the present day. In 
the House, in 1789, we find Sterling Tucker urging 
members from other States to exercise liberality and 
moderation in their demands, and to desist from press- 
ing measures " big with oppression and tending to bur- 



BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 



[Ch. I. 



Dissolution 
threatened, 
1789. 



High duties 
contested. 



Attitude 
on the 

constitutional 
question 
inconsistent. 



den particular States." ^ But it was in the Senate that 
the most vigorous attacks were made on the proposed 
tariff legislation. When a report was presented recom- 
mending certain duties that were intended to be pro- 
hibitory, Pierce Butler, only lately arrived from South 
Carolina, took the floor, and, as Maclay, the eccentric 
senator from Pennsylvania, tells us, " flamed like a 
meteor. He arraigned the whole impost law, and 
charged indirectly the whole Congress with a design of 
oppressing South Carolina." ^ He threatened " a dis- 
solution of the Union, with regard to his State, as sure 
as God was in the firmament." ^ 

From this time down to 18 16, although no high 
tariffs were proposed, nevertheless whenever a prop- 
osition was made to increase duties for the purpose 
of affording protection to particular interests. South 
Carolina entered her protest. It has already been stated 
that the State did not oppose duties levied for the sake 
of revenue. We may go further : in this earlier period 
the State did not yet take a stand against the principle 
of protection or deny the constitutionality of its exer- 
cise. What she did contest was simply the expedi- 
ency and justice of levying high duties for the sake of 
affording full protection to domestic, that is, to North- 
ern, manufacturers. So far was she, in the earlier 
period, from denying the constitutionality of the prin- 
ciple of protection, that she was willing to allow a moder- 
ate application of it by way of compromise, and was not 
averse to the proposition to protect her own people in 
their attempt to grow hemp along her coast.* In this 
respect alone was South Carolina's conduct really in- 
consistent. In the earlier period, in fact down to 1823, 

^ Annals of Cong., i Cong., I sess., 148 (17S9-91). 

2 Maclay, Sketches of Debate in the First Senate, 75. 

3 Ibid., 77. 

* Annals of Cong., i Cong., i sess., 155(1789-91). 



1789-1816.] SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE TARIFF. 5 

her representatives in Congress based their objections 
to the principle of protection only on grounds of expe- 
diency and justice, tacitly admitting its constitution- 
ality; whereas, from that time on they vigorously 
denied the constitutionality of its exercise to any 
extent whatever. 

It may perhaps be objected that the action of South Did repre- 

Carolina's leading representatives with reference to the sentatives 
° '■ represent r 

tariff act of 18 16 proves that she was not averse, for 
once at any rate, to high protective duties. On this 
point several answers might be made. The conditions 
at that moment were abnormal; the measure was in- 
tended to assist in the transition from war to peace; 
it was not looked upon as the beginning of a system to 
be perpetuated and extended. But it is a sufficient 
answer that, at the passage of this measure, South 
Carolina and her representatives who voted for it parted 
company. Calhoun himself was severely censured for 
his part in the struggle; and some of his constituents 
went so far as to charge that he had sold his State for 
the Presidency, He himself later admitted that even 
his friends thought he had gone too far.^ 

The dissatisfaction of South Carolina over the action The turning 
of Calhoun and others in voting for the tariff bill of P°'"^' 
18 16 was the beginning of the end. It marks the time 
when South Carolina began to feel that the interests of 
the South were not identical with those of the North ; 
that the general government was falling into the hands of 
Northerners, for whose unselfishness there was no guar- 
anty ; that, in short, the powers of the government were 
likely ^to be stretched more and more along lines not 
laid down in the Constitution. One form of statement 
might be that it marks the time when South Carolina 
erased from her program liberality, breadth of view, and 

* Cono^. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 246 (1837-38). 



BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 



[Ch. I. 



The liberal 

period, 

1812-17. 



Calhoun's 
breadth. 



unselfishness, and wrote in their place niggardliness, nar- 
rowness, and selfishness ; when she began to turn from 
union towards separation. From another point of view, 
it marks the time when, not South Carolina, but the 
other sections of the country which had secured control 
of affairs, changed their policy from a broad to a sec- 
tional one. From a third and higher standpoint, it marks 
the time when the less admirable qualities of both sec- 
tions became conspicuous in a struggle for what each 
section believed, or appeared to itself to believe, was for 
its own interest, and also for that of the country at large. 
There is no questioning the truth that after 18 16 South 
Carolina began to change her attitude towards the pol- 
icy of the general government, and, in fact, towards 
the union of the States. For some years a Federalist 
State, later a supporter of Jefferson, the Commonwealth 
had heartily indorsed the national administrations of 
the first quarter century. In fact, the people of the 
State were only following the leadership of a group of 
their own young and talented public men, William 
Lowndes, Langdon Cheves, John C. Calhoun, and David 
R. Williams. They had entered with enthusiasm into 
the war of 18 12; and Jackson's victory at the end of 
that war had left them boiling over with nationality. 
One Fourth of July a year was hardly enough for their 
ardent patriotism. They were broad-minded, and in- 
tolerant of littleness wherever manifested. With Cal- 
houn, they had desired to see the nation pursue an 
enlarged policy. They were willing to undergo every 
necessary sacrifice for the sake of the security of the 
country and the advancement of the national interests. 
" The gradual increase of the navy, a moderate military 
establishment, properly organized and instructed, a sys- 
tem of fortifications for the defence of the coast, a res- 
toration of specie currency, a due protection of those 
manufactures which had taken root during the period 



1816-24.] CHANGE OF TARIFF ATTITUDE. 7 

of war and restriction, and finally a system of connect- 
ing the various portions of the country by a judicious 
system of internal improvement," ^ — such were the 
measures which Calhoun could assert he had advocated 
down to the year 1817, not doubting the disposition of 
his constituents to uphold him. They applauded his 
declaration that the Union ought to be free from ex- Liberty and 

ternal danger and internal difficulty i^ that the liberty Union 

° •' "' inseparable, 

and union of the country were inseparably connected ; 

that disunion comprehended the sum of political dan- 
gers.^ They felt with him that the rulers of America 
had been charged by Providence, not only with the hap- 
piness of a great and rising people, but, in a consider- 
able degree, with that of the human race.^ 

When we consider South Carolina's attitude during 
the period down to 181 7, and in fact to 1824, on the 
more general subject of the interpretation of the Con- 
stitution, we shall find the most striking confirmation 
of what has just been said as to her broad spirit. The 
State countenanced a very liberal exercise of implied Exercise of 
powers ; not only did she support measures which ^'"Pl'^^ 
rested upon the doctrine of implication, but she also, advocated, 
through her representatives, championed the exercise 
of such powers in utterances of remarkable force. In 
fact, if they had been striving for effect, her most noted 
representatives could not have employed language that 
would have contrasted more strikingly with that the 
same men habitually employed after 1824. 

It would be difficult to find views more liberal than Eidred 
those expressed by Eidred Simkins in 18 18.^ He had Simkins. 

1 Calhoun at Abbeville, May 27, 1825, Niles Register, XXVIII. 
266. 

"^ Annals of Cotig., 14 Cong., 1 sess., 729 (1815-16). 
8 Ibid., 1335-36. 

* Ibid., 839. 

* McDuffie's law partner, whom McDufRe was to succeed a 
few years later. 



8 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1S23. [Ch. I. 

no fears of a vague, indefinite assumption of powers, 
and least of all was he afraid of " a consolidation of 
state sovereignties, or a destruction of state rights, by 
men coming from and identified with the people of the 
States. This alarm of state rights has been gotten up 
and encouraged by gentlemen most strangely. It would 
really seem that both the State and the general gov- 
ernments were not the governments of the same people, 
identified by the same interests. . . . Such strict con- 
struction would launch us into an ocean of uncertainties, 
and would fritter away all the Constitution worth pre- 
George serving." ^ McDuffie expressed himself not less admira- 

McDuffie, i^jy. sgygral years later. His remarks are, in themselves, 
well worth quoting at length ; and they are especially 
striking in view of the action of the South Carolina 
legislature the next year after his utterance. As late 
as February, 1824, we find him saying: — 

" To lay it down as a general rule, that all municipal 
powers, not expressly granted to the general govern- 
ment, belong to the State governments, either renders 
nugatory most of the powers of this government, or 
it does not advance us a single step towards the de- 
cision of the question we are discussing, 

"From this we are brought to the obvious conclu- 
sion, that the convention did not regard the State 
governments as sentinels upon the watchtowers of free- 
dom, or in any respect more worthy of confidence 
than the general government. . . . 

" In determining whether a given subject of legisla- 
tion should belong to Congress or to the State Legisla- 
ture, the inquiry before the convention was, not which 
of these will be most likely to abuse the trust, but to 
which of them does it appropriately belong in reference 
both to their organization and to the great objects they 

1 Annals 0/ Cong., 15 Cong., i sess., 1920, 1921 (1817-1S). 



1824.] MCDUFFIE'S HIGHER PRINCIPLES. 9 

were designed to accomplish. ... In this view of the Implied 
subject, I would lay it down as a general rule that all P^^^'^s- 
those subjects of legislation which concern the general 
interest of the whole union, which have a plain and obvi- 
ous relation to the powers expressly granted, and which a 
single State government cannot regulate, naturally be- 
long to the general government, unless it can be 
shown that the regulation of these subjects by Con- 
gress impairs the powers of the State legislatures to 
regulate their own internal police. . . . But, sir, in 
giving a construction to a power of this description McDuffie's 
["To establish post roads "1, we must ascend to much "higher 

1 • 1 • • 1 • "1 principles. 

higher prmciples than either law-books or lexicons 
can furnish. . . . 

" Driven, then, from the ground of precise constitu- 
tional investigation, gentlemen have conjured up a 
phantom which they denominate Consolidation, and 
which I shall now endeavor to exorcise. ... If they 
mean by it a firm and indissoluble union of the States, I, 
for one, am decidedly in favor of it; but if they mean 
by it the annihilation of the State governments, or the 
destruction of a single power that appropriately belongs 
to them, there is no man who disapproves of it more, 
and, I will add, who fears it less than I do." ^ 

What was the attitude of the man who later came to Calhoun, 
be recognized as the leader and champion of the State ^^^7° 
Rights party? How did John C. Calhoun stand on the 
fundamental questions of constitutional interpretation 
and of protection? 

On the question of constitutional interpretation Cal- 
houn had expressed himself superbly in 1817 : "He 
was no advocate for refined arguments on the Consti- 
tution. The instrument was not intended as a thesis 

1 McDuffie's Speech in 1824, Annals of Cong., 18 Cong., i sess., 
1372-1385 (1823-24). 



1612-20. 



10 BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. [Ch. I. 

for the logician to exercise his ingenuity on. It ought 
to be construed with plain good sense. ... If the 
framers had intended to limit the use of money to the 
powers afterwards enumerated and defined, nothing 
could be more easy than to have expressed it plainly. 
Our laws are full of instances of money appropriated 
without reference to enumerated powers." It is quite 
true that he said the Constitution was founded on posi- 
tive and written principles, not on precedent, but still he 
introduced instances, such as the Louisiana purchase, 
"to prove the uniform sense of Congress and the country 
(for they had not been objected to) as to our powers ; 
and surely, said he, they furnished better evidence of 
the true interpretation of the Constitution than the 
most refined and subtle arguments." ^ 
Calhoun, On the question of protection Calhoun declared him- 

self repeatedly, in the years from 181 2 to 1820. That 
he did ably, pointedly, and repeatedly advocate govern- 
mental aid for the manufacturing interests is as useless for 
later generations to undertake to deny as it was for him- 
self. In vain did he contend, in 1833, that his remarks on 
the tariff measure were impromptu ; that his expressions 
were unguarded ; and that the tariff then proposed was 
purely a revenue measure.^ He had committed him- 
self to the principle of protection as early as 1814, to 
the extent of saying that "moderate but permanent pro- 
tection " was " the great requisite to the due encourage- 
ment" of certain manufacturing interests,^ and that 
" he hoped to see manufactories encouraged by appro- 
priate duties and had no idea of their being left without 
such protection."* Again, in January, 1816, speak- 

^ Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., 2 sess., 855-56 (1816-17). 

2 Ibid., 22 Cong., 2 sess., 525 (1832-33). 

3 Ibid., 13 Cong., 2 sess., 1990 (1813-14). 
* Ibid., 1984. 



iSi2-20.] CALHOUN ADVOCATES PROTECTION. II 

ing on the general revenue policy which he wished to "Encourage- 
see Congress adopt, he advocated governmental inter- factor^s"'^'^" 
ference, and distinctly repudiated " laissez faire " in the 
following words : " The question relating to manufac- 
tures must not depend on the abstract principle that 
industry left to pursue its own course will find in its 
own interest all the encouragement that is necessary. 
I lay the claims of the manufacturers entirely out of 
view; . . . but on general principles ... a certain 
encouragement should be extended at least to our 
woollen and cotton manufactures." ^ The subject, he 
contended in a later speech, was connected with the 
safety of the country. Security, he argued, depends 
on the means of the country, and the means depend 
on the moneyed resources. Further, war would cut 
off agriculture and commerce from manufacturers. It 
was to be hoped that Congress would adopt a far- 
sighted policy .2 All this was but a part of the broad 
policy which Calhoun, as has been pointed out,^ was, 
during this period, urging Congress to pursue. He 
wished to see the government act on an enlarged 
policy, take advantage of experience, and add to its 
reputation. 

It was in this period that John Quincy Adams came john Quincy 

in contact with Calhoun, and found him a model. " Cal- "^'^^'"f, 

' , on Calhoun. 

houn is a man of fair and candid mind, of honorable 
principles, of clear and quick understanding, of cool 
self-possession, of enlarged philosophical views, and of 
ardent patriotism. He is above all sectional and fac- 
tional prejudices more than any other statesman of this 
Union with whom I ever acted." * " Calhoun has no 
petty scruples about constructive powers and state 

1 Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., i sess., 837 (1815-16). 

2 Ibid., 1330 (1815-16). 
8 See above, pp. d-^. 

^ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs^ V. 361. 



Calhoun, 
1831. 



Calhoun, 
1833- 



12 . •^BROAic) CONSYrUGTIOJJ^ Tp 1823. [Ch. I. 

rights. His opinions' are, at least, consistent." ^ Such 
was Calhoun down to 1822. 

What a different picture Adams draws of him in 
183 1 ! Writing then, he says that during the early part 
of Monroe's administration Calhoun pursued a course 
" from which I anticipated that he would prove ... a 
blessing to his country. I have been deeply disappointed 
in him, and now expect nothing from him but evil."^ 
It is not at all necessary to accept this statement entirely 
as Adams intended it. It is quoted simply to show how, 
to a man who began political life as a warm admirer, 
Calhoun appeared to change. Adams could only with 
great difficulty recognize the broad patriotic statesman 
of 181 7 in the Senator who was well on towards the 
point where he could proclaim that he appeared, not as 
the representative of the whole people, but as a repre- 
sentative of one of the States of the Union, sent to 
watch over its particular interests, and to promote the 
general welfare so far as was constitutional.^ The 
Calhoun who advocated protection in 1814 and 1816 
was very different from the Calhoun who, in 1833, em- 
bodied in formal resolution the proposition that Con- 
gress had no power to encourage manufactures, and that 
it could do no more than levy import duties to execute 
the inspection laws.* Of course, it does not follow 
that Calhoun should be censured for advocating the 
tariff act of 18 16, and then turning about and opposing 
the measures that were offered later. It is not the part 
of true statesmanship to adhere blindly to a given policy : 
a statesman will note every alteration in the political and 
economic situation. Protection in moderation may be 
beneficial ; any further application of the principle may 

^ John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VI. 75. 

2 Ibid., VIII. 411. 

3 Cojtg. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 246 (1S37-38). 

* Senate Documents, 22 Cong., 2 sess., I, No. 57 (1832-33). 



1816,1831.] CALHOUN'S INCONSISTENCY. 1 3 

be harmful. It was open to Calhoun to advocate the 

tariff bill of 18 16 on grounds of expediency, and to Calhoun's 

oppose that of 1828 on the same grounds; but he o"nthSS 

could not consistently assume in 18 16 that Congress 

had power to levy protective duties, and then in 1828 

utterly deny the existence of such a power. Yet he did 

do precisely that; and his admirers will hardly succeed 

in making his conduct at this time appear altogether 

satisfactory. The truth of the matter seems to be that 

Calhoun did not foresee what would be the consequences 

of the policy inaugurated in 18 16. He had not felt called 

upon to define his views, and to hedge them about. It 

was not politically convenient for him so to do. It was 

not till after the passage of the tariff act of 1828 that he 

felt it necessary to define v/hat really were his permanent 

views. 

In this connection it may be well to contrast Cal- Calhoun 
houn's earlier views on the question of slavery with °^ ^ avery. 
those which he held after his " diligent scrutiny of the 
Constitution" in 1828, in order to show that his views 
had changed all along the line. In 1816 it covered him 
with confusion even to state the fact in Congress that it 
had been the plain intention of the Constitution to toler- 
ate the slave trade till 1808. "He felt ashamed of such a 
tolerance, and took a large part of the disgrace, as he 
represented a part of the Union by whose influence it 
might be supposed to have been introduced." ^ It was 
an " odious traffic." Four years later, he was in favor ' 

of the Missouri Compromise.^ In the thirties, when 
the abolition struggle was on, we find him regretting 
that he had not followed the lead of Randolph in the 
Missouri Compromise struggle. At the time he had 
regarded Randolph as too uncompromising, but experi- 

1 Annals of Cong., 14 Cong., i sess., 531 (1815-16). 

2 Cong. Globe, 25 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 70 (1837-38). 



14 



BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO 1823. 



[Ch. I. 



Calhoun on 

Louisiana 

purchase. 



Precedents 
ignored. 



ence had taught him his error; and now, in 1837, he 
would redeem himself by his devotion to an interest 
he had put in jeopardy in his less experienced days. He 
would proclaim that slavery, as it actually existed, was 
a good thing for the white as well as for the black ; and 
that, " in fact, the defence of human liberty against the 
aggressions of despotic power had been always the 
most efficient in states where domestic slavery was 
found to prevail." ^ 

One more specific instance of the radical change in 
Calhoun's views may here be conveniently mentioned. 
Attention has already been called to the argument in 
which Calhoun cited the Louisiana purchase as a prece- 
dent for appropriating money without refereirce''to the 
enumerated powers.^ That reference he introduced, he 
said, " to prove the uniform sense of Congress and the 
country . . . as to our powers." " And surely," said he, 
" they furnish better evidence of the true interpretation 
of the Constitution than the most refined and subtle 
arguments." As John Quincy Adams says: " Calhoun 
thought the case of Louisiana had settled the Constitu- 
tional question."^ It is almost impossible to believe 
that the following sentences, which occurred in the 
exposition drawn up in 1828 for the committee of the 
South Carolina Legislature could have been penned by 
the man who made use of the language quoted above. 
" In the absence of arguments drawn from the Constitu- 
tion itself, the advocates of the power [to levy protective 
duties] have attempted to call in the aid of precedent. 
The Committee will not waste their time in examining 
instances quoted. If they were strictly in point, they 
would be entitled to little weight. Ours is not a gov- 
ernment of precedent; nor can they be admitted, 

^ Cong. Debates, 24 Cong., 2 sess., 719 (1836-37). 

"^ See above, p. 10. 

' John Quincy Adams, Memoirs^ VI. 72. 



i828.] PRECEDENTS IGNORED. 1 5 

except to a very limited extent, and with great caution, 
in the interpretation of the Constitution, without chan- 
ging, in time, the entire character of the instrument."^ 
Or, in plainer language, no precedents can have weight 
which prejudice South Carolina's case. 

One wishes that the South Carolina leaders in this Southern 
period might have had an opportunity to reach the suSed 
highest development of their powers, unhampered by 
the selfish local interests of contending sections. Their 
natural conceptions were noble and their spirit was ad- 
mirable; and one feels that they might have accom- 
plished much for the nation. At least, one regrets that 
they did not have a chance to make the attempt ; and 
that they were crushed by the weight of local interests 
that pressed down upon them and around them from 
every side and from every section. One scarcely knows 
which to regret most, the excessive disregard of general 
interest which met them, or the lack of moderation which 
they displayed when they turned to contend against it. 
It is to the grasping, selfish spirit of a large class of 
Northern manufacturers and their allies that we must 
attribute a considerable share of the responsibility for 
the disagreeable events of the period between 1816 and 
1833- 

* Exposition, in Works, VI. 3. 



CHAPTER II. 



Theory of the 

Constitution 

shifting. 



Supports 
for the 
new theory. 



The 
Federalist. 



THEORIES OF THE CONSTITUTION IN SOUTH 
CAROLINA. — 1789-1828. 

The change in attitude on the tariff and allied sub- 
jects, is only one of several evidences that the whole 
theory of the Constitution was shifting in South Caro- 
lina. The process ended in 1828, when the doctrine of 
nullification was enunciated. To support it, Calhoun 
and his school appealed to the Federalist; cited the 
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions; recalled the pro- 
ceedings in New England during the war of 181 2; 
pointed to the controversy between Georgia and the 
general government, not then settled ; and, finally, 
rested upon the understanding that South Carolina 
had had from the beginning as to the nature of the 
Union. It will be profitable, therefore, to go over this 
ground with some care, and to inquire whether any of 
the authorities or cases appealed to really furnished 
substantial support for the doctrine. First in order is 
the Federalist. 

For a subtle and systematic discussion of the abstract 
question of sovereignty, of the nature of the Union, 
and the like, we should look in vain in the Federal- 
ist or in any of the early documents. The framers 
of the Constitution and the advocates of its adoption 
were engaged in a very practical, common-sense, and 
extremely urgent undertaking. The existence of the 
Union itself was at stake. They devoted all their fac- 
ulties in the first place to devising a plan that would 



\ 

1787-88.] THE FEDERALIST EXAMINED. 1 7 

work, that would establish the Union on a firm basis ; 
and then they bent their energies to the task of securing 
the adoption of the system they had devised. They 
did not set out, as Frenchmen do, determined to be 
logical at every hazard. Therefore, as might be ex- Constitution 
pected, the result of their labors was not a model from perfect!^^ ^ 
a logical point of view. It was, so to speak, a jumble 
of principles, one here running into another there, a 
system of checks and balances, a " bundle of compro- 
mises"; and therefore any conclusion purporting to be 
deduced from any single principle would necessarily be 
only a half truth or no truth at all. 

While therefore, happily, we do not find in the 
Federalist the subtle and metaphysical discussions in 
which some of our public men later revelled, we do 
find anticipated and discussed almost every constitu- Calhoun 
tional point that vexed our fathers. And there is not 
one substantial position assumed by Calhoun in his 
Exposition of 1828 upon which the Federalist does not 
touch. 

Calhoun, as we shall see, took as his fundamental Calhoun's 
principle the proposition that the States before the sovereignty. 
Union were sovereigns, — that to the Union the people 
of the several States acceded as States. From this he 
evolved the doctrine of nullification and secession. It 
is no easy task to keep track of the meaning of the 
words " sovereign " and " sovereignty " in the writings 
of our statesmen present or past ; but it is not difficult to 
ascertain that Madison and Hamilton, when they spoke 
of the "sovereignty of the States" in 1787, did not 
mean by the expression what Calhoun meant by it in 
1828. A careful reading of the Federalist, a rational Federalist on 
comparison of its various parts, reveals as to essential ^°^^''^'S" y- 
matters a consistent body of principles in support of the — 

proposition that the States were not, when the Consti- 
tution was framed, and had never been, separate and 

2 



l8 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 

independent sovereigns.^ There would be little dis- 
position to question the correctness of this statement so 
far as Jay and Hamilton are concerned. If, however, 
confirmation were wanted as to Madison's view, it 
would be necessary only to refer to his expressions in 
the Constitutional Convention itself. Language could 
Madison on scarcely be more explicit. *' Some contend that the 
overeignty. 5|-^|.gg ^j-g sovereign, when in fact they are only political 
societies. There is a gradation of power in all societies, 
from the lowest corporation to the highest sovereign. 
The States never possessed the essential rights of sov- 
ereigns. These were always vested in Congress. Their 
voting as States in Congress is no evidence of sover- 
eignty. The State of Maryland voted by counties. 
Did this make the counties sovereign? The States, at 
present, are only great corporations, having the power 
of making by-laws, and these are effective only if they 
are not contradictory to the general Confederation. 
The States ought to be placed under the control of the 
general government, — at least as much so as they 
formerly were under the King and British Parlia- 
ment." ^ Madison, with Jay and Hamilton, contended 
that even under the Confederation a Union existed 
which could exercise powers that no State could con- 
stitutionally question, which no State could legally ob- 
struct, a Union whose bonds no State could legally 
throw off.^ The authors of the Federalist speak not of 
establishing a union, but of preserving the Union, and 
of the evils that would result from its dismemberment. 

But, while Jay, Hamilton, and Madison denied the 
individual sovereignty of the States under the Confed- 

^ Federalist (" 25th edition " in Lodge's edition of Works of 
Alexander Hatnilton^ IX.), Nos. ii. 8j vii. 33 ; xiii. 74; xiv. 81,82; 
xxii. 12S, 135; XXX. 175, 176. 

2 Elliot's Debates, I. 461, 462, June 29, 1787. 

* See below, p. 21. 



1787-88.] THE FEDERALIST EXAMINED. 19 

eration, and that any State could secede, and were aware Federalist on 
that the nature of the Union could legally be changed ^nh^*'°" 
only by the consent of every member in it; yet they Constitution, 
were engaged in advocating a plan which proposed radi- 
cal alterations, and which was to go into operation when 
only nine of the members had assented. At this point, 
although these writers labored hard, they did not suc- 
ceed in disguising the fact that the action proposed and 
taken was revolutionary. They stated that, in order to 
make the matter appear as equitable as possible, and 
also for reasons of convenience, it had been determined 
that each State was to exercise its free will in the mat- 
ter of ratifying the Constitution ; that it was decided to 
consider each State, at the time of ratification, " as a 
sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to 
be bound by its own voluntary act." ^ The instrument 
adopted, the States would of course be subordinated to 
the general government to a greater extent than before ; 
but still an indistinct portion of the supremacy over all Federalist 
persons and things v^ould be reserved to the States, and, 
in the powers reserved, the States would be " no more 
subject ... to the general authority than the general 
authority," in its delegated powers, would be sub- 
ject to them.2 In a sphere somewhat indefinite, each 
State would be a legal sovereign exercising certain 
reserved powers ; in another sphere equally undefined, 
the general government would be a legal sovereign, 
exercising certain delegated powers, with power through 

^ Federalist, xxxix. 236. That Madison would have attached 
to the method by which the Constitution was ratified the signifi- 
cance that Calhoun gave it, is negatived" by the spirit of all Madi- 
son's writings. Madison would proljably have raised no objection 
to the language used by Chief Justice Marshall in McCuUoch v. 
Maryland in speaking on this very point. See Curtis, Decisions of 
the United States Suprente Court, IV., pp. 419-20. 

2 Federalist, Nos. xxxii. 186; xxxix. 238, 239; xlv. 286, 287. 



on division of 
powers. 



20 



CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. Ch. II. 



Supreme 
Court the 
arbiter. 



Federalist vs. 
Calhoun. 



Individuals. 



Remedies 
for federal 
aggressions. 



the Supreme Court to pass on cases of conflict. That 
Madison undoubtedly had in mind the very question 
of the division of powers, as referred to by Calhoun in 
his Exposition and elsewhere, is made evident in a pas- 
sage where he speaks of " controversies relating to the 
boundary between the two jurisdictions." And it is 
worthy of note that the Supreme Court is designated 
as the tribunal which should settle such controversies.^ 

Not only do we find such general principles as 
the foregoing plainly expressed or clearly implied in 
the Federalist; but we also find specific expressions 
on the particular points that Calhoun emphasized, and 
we find that these expressions are diametrically op- 
posed to Calhoun's positions. For instance, in a spirit 
directly contrary to Calhoun's first inference from his 
fundamental principles that there was no immediate 
connection between the individual citizen and the 
general government, we find Hamilton writing: "The 
great and radical vice in the construction of the exist- 
ing Confederation is in the principle of legislation for 
states or governments, in their corporate capacities, and 
as contradistinguished from the individuals." And 
again: " We must extend the authority of the Union to 
the persons of the citizens, — the only proper objects of 
government" ^ That this principle prevailed in the 
Constitutional Convention it is needless to argue. But 
the authors of the Federalist went further; they con- 
sidered fully the questions as to what remedies might 
be adopted in case the general government should 
exercise powers that might be thought unwarranted. 
Their conclusions were about as follows. In the first 
place, appeal should be made to the Supreme Court, 
which was to be considered the bulwark of the Con- 
stitution.^ " In the last resort, a remedy must be 

^ Federalist, No. xxxix. 238. 2 /^/^.^ Nq. xv. 86-88. 

* Ibid., Nos. xxxix. 238 ; xliv. 282 ; Ixxix. 284-287. 



1787-88] REMEDIES FOR FEDERAL AGGRESSIONS. 21 

obtained from the people, who can, by the election "interposi- 
of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the g'^sled"^ 
usurpers." ^ There was a further remedy suggested, 
which is exceedingly interesting because it is in sub- 
stance what Madison suggested to Virginia in 1798. 
Encroachments of the federal government, he wrote in 
the Federalist, would not excite the opposition of a sin- 
gle State or of a few States. " They would be signals of 
general alarm. Every government would espouse the 
common cause. A correspondence would be opened. 
Plans of resistance would be organized. One spirit 
would animate and conduct the whole." ^ Unless 
the innovations should be renounced, there would be 
an appeal to force. But the federal government could 
not go to such a degree of madness. It would be 
folly for a few representatives to oppose the people 
themselves. 

These were all the remedies suggested. But there Secession 
was one which was pointedly rejected, and that was a^remedy^^ 
the interference of particular States.^ There is a pas- 
sage which has a very marked bearing on the ques- 
tion of secession. Hamilton had just referred to the 
gross " heresy " that a party to a compact could revoke 
that compact, a doctrine which, in a discussion relating 
to the Confederation, had found some respectable advo- 
cates. " The possibility of a question of this nature 
proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our 
national government deeper than in the mere sanction 
of delegated authority. The fabric of the American 
empire ought to rest on the solid basis of tJie consent of 
the people.'^ ^ 

Thus it appears, from a fair examination of the Fed- Virginia and 
eralist, that Calhoun's doctrine must look elsewhere for Resolutions, 
support. What now of the Virginia and Kentucky 

^ Federalist, No. xliv. 283. ' Ibid., No. xvi. 96. 

2 Ibid., No. xlvi. 295-297. * Ibid., No. xxii. 135. 



22 



CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 



Doctrine 
of 'q8. 



Remedies 
proposed. 



Resolutions? It was upon these documents that the 
South CaroHna leaders mainly relied. They were con- 
tent so long as they had *' the good old Republican 
doctrine of '98 " to stand on. The sentiments and 
the very language of the documents were freely appro- 
priated by those who drafted the nullification reports 
and resolutions. 

In general, the two sets of resolutions, that of Vir- 
ginia and that of Kentucky, are substantially the 
same, at least in spirit. They give the same account 
of the origin and nature of the general government, 
declaring that, by compact under the title of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, the States created a 
general government with definite powers for special 
purposes; that to this compact each State acceded as a 
State ; and that the government created by this compact 
was not made the final judge as to the extent of its 
powers. Just at this point a slight difference between 
the two sets arises. In pointing out the final judge of 
controversies between the two jurisdictions, the State 
and the Federal, the Virginia Resolutions declare that 
"In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous ex- 
ercise of other powers not granted by the said com- 
pact, the States who are parties thereto have the right 
and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the 
progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their 
respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties 
appertaining to them"; while the Kentucky Resolu- 
tions set forth that, "As in all other cases of compact 
among parties having no common judge, each party has 
an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions 
as of the mode and measure of redress." ^ Madison, 
in the Virginia Resolutions, followed strictly the line he 

^ For the Resolutions and an account of them, see E. D. War- 
field, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: An Historical Study. 
1887. 



1798-99] VIRGINIA AND' KENTUCKY, 23 

had laid down in the Federalist; ^ the Kentucky Reso- 
lutions, following Jefferson's lead, seem to go further. 

The sentence just quoted from them was made to do Virginia and 

very effective work by the nullifiers. In fact, it was very ^'^?"t"<^'^y 
-' -^ ^ J misconstrued. 

much overworked. It appears that the expression is not 
in harmony with the general spirit of the resolutions ; it 
certainly is scarcely in keeping with the particular 
course that was pursued at the time. Kentucky merely 
declared that the construction which the general govern- 
ment had applied to certain articles of the Constitution 
was unwarranted and dangerous; that the proceedings 
of the government under color of those articles should 
be reserved for correction at a time of greater tranquil- 
lity; that certain statutes, among them the Alien and 
Sedition Acts, were null and void ; and that the condition 
of things called for immediate redress. The Governor 
was therefore authorized to communicate the Resolu- 
tions to the Legislatures of the several States; the Sena- 
tors and Representatives were called upon to present 
them in their respective Houses ; and the co-States were Appeal to 
requested to express their sentiments, and to join with 
Kentucky in securing the repeal of the obnoxious 
measures at the next session of Congress. Thus did 
Kentucky bring herself alongside of the Federalist 
and the Virginia. Resolutions. Virginia regretted the 
tendency of the government to enlarge its powers by 
forced construction ; protested against the Alien and 
Sedition Laws as infractions of the Constitution ; ap- 
pealed to other States to concur in declaring those laws 
unconstitutional, and to take the " necessary and proper 
measures " for co-operating with Virginia " in maintain- 
ing unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties re- 
served to the States respectively, or to the people," 

Only the most forced construction could find a war- 
rant in either or both of these sets of resolutions for 
1 See above, p. 21. 



' co-States." 



24 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 

No warrant the extreme doctrine to which South Carolina gave her 
doctrfne°"" '' sanction in 1828. Madison himself denied that either 
Jefferson or himself meant by the proceedings in 1798 
what Calhoun and others claimed for them; the course 
of South Carolina to 1827 indicates that she had the 
same understanding of the proceedings as Madison had ; 
and in 1832 there were seventeen thousand out of the 
thirty-nine or forty thousand voters in South Carolina 
who, notwithstanding the great pressure upon them, 
denied the validity of Calhoun's construction. 

One would naturally expect the remedy adopted in 
1798 to be different from that of 1832. The problems of 
the two periods were radically different. In 1798 the 
question before Jefferson and Madison was how to check 
the measures of the general government which they be- 
The problems lieved were obnoxious to the great majority of the peo- 
ple, and to all the States. The case before them was 
one where a few representatives of the people were op- 
posed to the whole people, a case to which Hamilton 
had directed attention in the Federalist. The men of 
'98 had not recovered from their dread of a monarchy. 
The course of the government furnished some ground 
for alarm. Later, in 1832, the question was not how to 
assure the will of the majority, but how to devise a 
remedy by which the minority might control the major- 
ity and the Union be still preserved. South Carolina's 
grievance was that the measures of the government 
did have the support of the majority of the people 
and the majority of the States. Her position was, not 
that an oligarchy at the seat of government should not 
rule, but that the majority should not rule. In the 
one case, the States could be appealed to with some 
confidence ; in the other, the appeal to the States was 
a failure. 
Georgia's From the Georgia controversy, South Carolina de- 

iso e lence. ^j^^j considerable satisfaction ; for she was aware that 



179S, 1832.] PROBLEMS OF 1798 AND 1832. 2$ 

Georgia had defied the Executive till 1829, when an Ex- 
ecutive came in who winked at her misdoings. She 
noted that Georgia at the next stage of the controversy- 
treated the injunctions of the Supreme Court with open 
contempt, and was not called to account. Seeing, then, Jackson's 
that Jackson, if not disposed to side openly with Geor- ^^""ivance. 
gia, was at least indifferent, she drew the reasonable 
conclusion that Jackson would scarcely coerce her. 
She professed to base her resistance upon principles 
which Georgia had enunciated.^ 

From the proceedings in New England during the Hartford 
war of 1812, South Carolina could attempt to make Convention, 
capital only with very bad grace ; for her legislature 
had, at the time, pointedly rebuked New England's atti- 
tude; and throughout the State, the Hartford Conven- 
tion had aroused execration, and had been termed a 
traitorous association.^ 

In fact, it is extremely unfortunate for South Carolina South 
that she had to originate, or at least to put into practice, ^a^ri°^histo 
the doctrine of nullification. There was nothing in the against 
past conduct of the State, and little or nothing in the 
expressions or actions of any of her representatives, to 
give support to the doctrine. On the contrary, the 
early history of the State speaks as strongly as possible 
in condemnation of it. The evidence for this is so strik- 
ing as to justify extended notice. 

Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Her 
John Rutledge, and Pierce Butler were South Caro- coSutional 
lina's delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Of Convention, 
these, the two Pinckneys and Rutledge were decidedly 
in favor of establishing a strong national government, 

1 The encouragement from Georgia's attitude is shown in a 
speech of Senator Miller of South Carolina, Cong. Debates, 22 
Cong., 2 sess., 453, 454 (1832-33), and in John Quincy Adams's 
Memoirs, VIII. 262. 

2 David R. Williams : Charleston Mercury, Aug. 27, 1828. 



26 



CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 



State 

sovereignty 
condemned. 



State 
Convention. 



capable of effectively executing its acts and of dis- 
pensing its benefits and protection. The two Pinckneys 
could scarcely find language sufficiently forcible to 
express their condemnation of the doctrine that the 
States were separately and individually sovereign. The 
entire delegation opposed giving Congress power to 
negative laws passed by the several States contraven- 
ing the articles of union, but advocated making the 
acts of Congress the supreme law of the several States.^ 
Later, Charles Pinckney even introduced a motion to 
give Congress power to negative all State laws which 
Congress should judge improper, grounding his motion 
on the necessity of having a strong controlling power.^ 
When Randolph, of Virginia, declared that certain reso- 
lutions which he introduced were intended, not for a 
federal, but for a strong national government, in which 
all idea of States should be nearly annihilated, Charles 
Pinckney asserted that his principles were the same as 
Randolph's.^ Such sentiments were not only expressed 
in the Constitutional Convention, but were also uttered 
with even more emphasis in the State Convention itself. 
Charles Pinckney there expressed his fear that it was 
almost impossible to provide any government on re- 
publican principles sufficiently vigorous to extend its 
influence to all parts of the country. " The State 
governments will too naturally slide into an opposition 
against the general one and be easily induced to con- 
sider themselves as rivals."* Charles Cotesworth Pinck- 
ney boldly proclaimed that attempts to weaken the 
Union, by pretending that each State was separately 
and individually independent, were political heresies 
which would produce serious distress. " The separate 
independence and individual sovereignty of the sev- 



* Elliot, Debates, I. 207. 

* Ibid., I. 400. 



3 Ibid., I. 391. 

4 Ibid., IV. 259. 



1787-1817.] STATE SOVEREIGNTY CONDEMNED. 2/ 

eral States was never thought of by the enlightened 
band of patriots who framed this Declaration." ^ 

Coming down to a later date, let us examine the Langdon 
opinion of one of the most eminent men South Carolina ^heves 

* against 

has given to the republic. Langdon Cheves, in 18 12, Calhoun, 
was speaking on a bill concerning the militia. To dis- ^ ^^' 
cover the intent of the Constitution on that subject, 
he felt it necessary to discuss the nature of the gov- 
ernment. Is it federal or national ? he asked, — a 
government of the States, or of the people? For the 
purpose of making war, it was essentially national. 
The difference between a federal government and a 
national government might be seen by comparing the 
present government with the old Confederation. " The 
last, unlike the former, was not in itself a sovereign." 
It could make no law immediately binding on the per- 
sons and property of the citizens of the several States. 
The present government can. " This, then, is a defi- 
nition of a national government or a government of the 
people. It acts immediately on the person and the • 
property of the citizen, and such, as to the power of 
declaring and making war, is the nature of the govern- 
ment of the United States."^ A considerable difference 
there is between these sentiments and the later doctrine 
of Calhoun that there is no direct connection between 
the citizen and the general government, and that the 
only connection is through the State, a doctrine which 
he considered the first inference from the nature of the 
relations between the States and the general govern- 
ment.'^ 

In 1817 Langdon Cheves, then a State judge, was Cheves on 
called upon to pass upon the right of the Judiciary to q"^shing 
declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, and 

■¥ 1 Elliot, Debates, IV. 301. 

' Annals of Cottg., 12 Cong., i sess., 735 (1811-12). — • 
3 One of the People, Oct. i, 1821, in McDuffie's Essays. 



28 



CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 



George 
McDuffie vs. 
state sover- 
eignty, 1821. 



State not 
the arbiter. 



he made use of the following language : " The co-ordi- 
nate authority of the Judiciary and its right and duty to 
determine where its functions involve the question on 
the constitutional validity of a legislative act, I take to 
be a point now settled by the judgment of almost every 
respectable judicial tribunal, and confirmed by the ap- 
probation and acquiescence of all wise and sober states- 
men in the Union ; but it is still a power to be exercised 
with great circumspection, and a duty which is incum- 
bent only in very clear cases. On this subject I adopt 
with entire approbation the language of the Supreme 
Court of the United States." ^ 

But the most sweeping denunciation by a South 
Carolinian of the doctrine of strict construction and of 
state sovereignty is yet to be mentioned. In 1821, 
George McDuffie wrote a pamphlet in reply to a 
Georgia paper which had contended for the sound- 
ness of these two doctrines. That pamphlet had the 
indorsement of Governor Hamilton. The principles 
enunciated are truly Websterian ; the general govern- 
ment is as certainly the government of the whole people 
as the State is of part of the people ; the Constitution was 
ordained by " the people of the United States " ; it was 
not intended that national officials should be restrained 
by the lawless resistance of State officials. The central 
government was as worthy of confidence as that of a 
State. It was not an object of dread. The State sys- 
tems tended more to disunion than to consolidation. It 
has been asserted that, in case of conflict, each party 
has a right to judge for itself. " No climax of political 
heresies can be imagined in which this might not claim 
the most prominent place. To suppose a general gov- 
ernment has the right to exercise certain powers, and 
that each has the right to determine its own relative 
powers, is to suppose the existence of two contradictory 
1 A/'iles Register, XII. 248. 



i 



I82I-26.] FUNCTIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. 29 

and inconsistent rights." This pamphlet was written 
the year McDuffie and Hamilton took their seats in 
Congress. Only a few years later we find both these 
men among the most active in carrying into practice 
the principles here so strongly condemned. 

Even these striking public expressions of well known South 
leaders do not complete the evidence. The represent- ^^^°}}^^ on 

^ _ ^ functions of 

atives of South Carolina on various occasions passed the Supreme 
judgment upon the specific question as to whether the 
State or the Supreme Court was the final judge of the 
constitutionality of an act of Congress. Their decision 
was invariably in favor of the Supreme Court, and, 
so far as public records show, passed without pro- 
test from their colleagues or from their constituents. 
Such opinions were given at different times from 1798 
to 1826, by no less distinguished representatives than 
Robert Goodlow Harper,^ John Rutledge, Jr., William 
Lowndes,^ and even William Harper, the able exponent 
of the nullification doctrine. In 1802, John Rutledge, 
speaking on a measure affecting the Judiciary, ably 
pointed out its function in our system : the people, 
he observed, could never have adopted the Constitution 
had they not regarded the Judiciary as co-ordinate with 
the Legislative and Executive, and as the check essen- 
tial to the duration of the government; the State gov- Reverence for 
ernments reverenced the Judiciary as the fortress of their the Judiciary, 
safety. So long as it remained, there could not be 
much permanent oppression. The people through the 
Constitution had given the Judiciary power to declare 
unconstitutional laws passed by Congress in defiance of 
the Constitution. In 1820, William Lowndes remarked 
that it was foreseen by the framers of the Constitution 
that a State might attempt to break over the barriers 

1 Anfials of Cong., 5 Cong., 2 sess., 1991 (1797-99). 

2 /did., 16 Cong., 2 sess., 515 (1S20-21). 



30 



CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 



South 

Carolina 

Legislature 

national, 

1824. 



of the Constitution. Provision had been made for 
such a contingency. The Judiciary had been provided 
to settle such constitutional questions.^ But even 
more striking, perhaps, is the declaration of Senator 
Harper as late as 1826 that the Supreme Court was 
made by the Constitution the arbiter between the con- 
flicting elements of our complicated system, and that its 
office was to restrain, not only the powers of the States, 
but also those of the general government; the Supreme 
Court was the guarantee of the Constitution.^ 

To turn for a moment to the South Carolina Legis- 
lature: In December, 1824, the tariff act passed by 
Congress in the spring of that year was brought to the 
attention of the Legislature and was referred to a com- 
mittee of which Judge Prioleau was a member. A 
statement known as Prioleau's report was brought in; 
it declared that if the tariff bill was in fact a bill to en- 
courage manufacturers at the expense of agriculture, it 
would meet with decided disapproval ; " but whether 
the act be or be not unconstitutional, has not been 
decided by the only proper tribunal, the Federal Judi- 
ciary."^ The following very striking resolutions were 
thereupon adopted. 

" Resolved : That the people have conferred no power 
upon their State Legislature to impugn the Acts of 
the federal government or the decision of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States. 

" Resolved : That any exercise of such a power by 
this state would be an act of usurpation. 

" Resolved : That the Representatives of the people 
in Congress are only responsible under God to the 
people themselves." 



^ Annals of Cong., 6 Cong., 2 sess., 932 (1799-1800). 
2 Cong. Debates, 19 Cong., i sess., 549 (1825-26). 
8 Five Letters to Gov. Hamilton. No. 4 in pamphlet in Bos- 
ton Athenaeum (Library No. B. 1065). 



1824-29.] BROAD CONSTRUCTION PERSISTS. 3 1 

It must not be overlooked, that down to 1828 the Confused 
South Carohna leaders seem to have had a confused sovereignty" 
conception as to the nature and the seat of sovereignty. 
The confusion into which Senator Hayne fell in 1830 in 
his discussion of the origin of the Union has been pointed 
out by several writers. It will be remembered that he 
made the general government one of the sovereign par- 
ties to the compact. That he did so is not remarkable : 
it was very common in South Carolina and elsewhere to 
speak of the sovereign federal government on the one 
hand, and of the sovereign States on the other. '' Sid- 
ney," as we shall see,^ fell into the same confusion in 
1828; as did also James Hamilton, in his address to his 
constituents at VValterborough in October of the same 
year.^ We have even the serious remonstrance of the 
South Carolina Legislature in 1827, where it is repre- 
sented to be important that South Carolina should ap- 
proach the national government as a sovereign a7id an South 
equal. She had not then adopted Calhoun's view that »an*equal." 
the national government was a mere creature. So far 
as there was any definite opinion at all, it appears to 
have been that both the State and the general govern- 
ment were sovereign, each in its own sphere, and that 
in cases of conflict the Supreme Court was the arbiter. 

The truth is that the question had come to be 
one that could not be decided by weight of authority. 
So much Hayne declared in 1829, when he said that 
his State would never yield to great names when such Submission 
principles were at stake ; and so much McDuffie im- ^'"P^^^' 
plied when he asked if it could be supposed that 
South Carolina could submit to a practical interpre- 
tation of the compact by which her interests would 

1 See below, page 75. 

2 " Let our antagonist be a co-equal Sovereign, and let us meet 
him on equal grounds." 



32 CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES TO 1828. [Ch. II. 

be sacrificed. One thing was settled: the extreme 
state rights leaders had determined to make a test of 
their doctrine, and to ascertain whether their rights 
could be trampled upon " under the forms of the 
Constitution, but in direct violation of its spirit." 



.• 



CHAPTER III. 

CAUSES OF NULLIFICATION. 
1823-1828. 

To the people of South Carolina everything seemed Change in 
to go wrong after the defeat of Andrew Jackson in 1824. demalS. 
The times appeared to be out of joint: had not the 
"Adams Dynasty" imposed itself on the country by 
fraud and corruption ? Had it not deviated from the 
conservative policy of preceding administrations and 
announced principles that were at variance with the well 
established rights of the States? " A union of the black- Discontent 
leg and the Puritan," what better could be expected of 0^1824^'^ ' 
it? Public sentiment in the State demanded such a 
change in the electoral machinery as would prevent a 
recurrence of the surprise of 1824. In no event should 
Congress be permitted to choose the President. Gov- 
ernor Manning, in his message, December i, 1826, ex- 
pressed the opinion that the time was not far distant 
when it would be found expedient to change the method 
of electing the President; the House of the State Legis- 
lature agreed with him, but deemed it unwise, at the 
time, to agitate the matter. McDufifie championed this 
reform both in and out of Congress, to the great satis- 
faction of his constituents. 

To add to the discontent of the South Carolinians Discontent 
came the renewed demands of the protectionists for j^j-jfj^ 
higher duties, after the slight revulsion of 1825-26. 
In the session of Congress of 1826-27, the woollen in- 
terests, in particular, clamored for aid. A bill was in- 
troduced embodying their demands, and would have 

3 



34 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



Harrisburg 
Convention. 



Responsi- 
bility for 
" Bill of 
Abomina- 
tions," 1828. 



Fighting the 
Devil with 
fire. 



become a law but for the casting vote of the Vice- 
President, Calhoun. This only intensified the agita- 
tion outside of Congress. A national convention was 
held in Harrisburg in the summer of 1827, which rec- 
ommended duties on woollens and a number of other 
commodities, higher even than those of the rejected 
tariff bill of 1827. The contest was renewed in Con- 
gress immediately after it assembled ; the struggle that 
ensued was remarkable.^ The opponents of protection 
adopted the principle of " fighting the devil with fire." 
Their intention was to prepare a dose that even New 
England could not swallow. But they had not taken 
the measure of New England's gullet correctly; they 
did not know the capacity of that section when it came 
to swallowing tariffs; for the "Bill of Abominations" 
went down with scarcely a hitch. The over-shrewd- 
ness of the low tariff men had resulted in their dis- 
comfiture. The tariff bill of 1828 was more hideous 
to its pretended friends than to its supposed enemies; 
and the responsibility for many of its most obnoxious 
features rested as much upon the representatives of 
South Carolina as upon those of any other State. 
Thomas R. Mitchell had frankly said that he would 
vote for retaining the duty on molasses, " because he 
believed that keeping it in the bill would get voters 
against the final passage of the bill ; and if the bill 
must pass, he wished the poor to be made to feel its 
oppressive operations, that a stronger interest might 
be created in the country against the tariff system."^ 
McDufifie, in 1844, gave the same explanation of his 
action and that of his colleagues.^ But, in spite of the 

^ See Taussig, Tariff History of the United States, 86-101. 

2 Cong. Debates, 20 Cong., i sess., 2344 (1827-28). 

8 " We saw that this system of protection was about to assume 
gigantic proportions, and to devour the Substance of the Country, 
and we determined to put such ingredients in the chalice as would 



1827-28.] TARIFF OF 1828. 35 

tactics of the Democrats, in spite of the protests of the 
South CaroHna Legislature, in spite of memorials from 
nearly every district in the State, and in spite of the 
remonstrances and the threats of the representatives 
from South Carolina, the " bill of abominations " be- 
came a law. 

The passage of this measure convinced South Caro- Grievance 

. stated 

lina that it was time to clear the deck for action. It 

only coniirmed the convictions of those who had given 
warning of danger, and, as will be shown further on,^ it 
impelled Calhoun to cast in his lot with his former op- 
ponents. To understand the conduct of the people of 
South Carolina from this time forward, it will be neces- 
sary to endeavor to enter into their state of mind, to 
ascertain their grievances more clearly, and to take 
cognizance of their apprehensions. For this purpose, we 
cannot do better than to make an examination of the im- 
passioned arguments of George McDuffie in Congress; 
and, later, of the torrent of denunciation, warning, ex- 
hortation, and appeal that Robert J. Turnbull poured 
out, in 1827, in "The Crisis." For a fair presentation 
of McDuffie's views, we must not confine ourselves to 
any particular speech, but look rather at his whole 
course through the debates on the tariff bill of 1824, 

poison the monster and commend it to his own lips. This is what 
is sometimes called 'fighting the devil with fire,' a policy which, 
though I did not altogether approve, I adopted in deference to 
the opinions of those with whom I acted." Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., 
I sess., Appendix, 747 (1843-44). These tactics were not entirely- 
novel. In 1789, Tucker, of South Carolina, said : " I could not 
answer for my conduct if I did not agree to a heavy tax on the 
Eastern states, when I found the Southern states taxed in that pro- 
portion. If the gentlemen from Massachusetts think the duty on 
molasses bears too heavy on their state, they may remedy the evil 
by agreeing to a general reduction." — Annals of Cong., i Cong., 
I sess., 293 (1789-91). 
^ See below, p. 63. 



36 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



George 
McDufSe. 



McDuffie as 
an orator. 



the woollens measure of 1827, the struggle of 1828, and 
even through the debates of 1830. 

McDuffie was well fitted for the part he had to play. 
A suspicion that any injustice was intended against his 
people was sufficient to set his soul on fire. And the 
conviction was gradually gaining strength with him that 
he was breathing an atmosphere of injustice. Few men 
of his time equalled him in ability to persuade the 
masses. Clear-headed, pure-hearted, frank, bold, deter- 
mined, he had passionate convictions, was not afraid to 
utter them or to act in accordance with them. He 
could not stop half way, and was perhaps too uncom- 
promising. He rejected as a " perfect solecism " Cal- 
houn's contention that a State could nullify an act of 
Congress by virtue of any power derived from the Con- 
stitution. He placed the right on higher ground, on 
the mere fact of the sovereignty of the State ; in 
fact, he accepted the doctrine of nullification at all 
only because he could not reasonably hope for a more 
effective measure. It would seem that he was willing 
to rest the case of the State upon the bare right of 
revolution. In 1833 he was opposed to accepting the 
Clay Compromise, but yielded in deference to the great 
majority of his colleagues. 

McDuffie was the most sensational orator of his time. 
When it was known that he was going to speak on the 
floor of Congress, the galleries usually filled at an early 
hour. He was a bitter opponent of the Adams admin- 
istration ; and against it and its defenders he hurled 
denunciation and vituperation day after day. Josiah 
Quincy gives us a picture of him in action at this time : 
" McDuffie was certainly an orator, if earnestness and 
fluency can make one. His effort, and it may well be 
so called, for he gesticulates all over, lasted the greater 
part of two days, and was always lively, if never conclu- 
sive. He was not guilty of sawing the air with his 



1824-33] MCDUFFIE'S CHARACTER. 37 

hands after the manner which Hamlet deprecates, for he McDuffie's 
preferred to pound that element with tightly clenched ^'^^ 
fists. ' Will not those fists of McDuffie's fly off and hit 
somebody? ' whispered Miss Helen to me during one of 
the tempests, or, as I may say, whirlwinds of passion." ^ 
The ** over-emphasis " of this " high-talking South- 
erner " was too much for the proper taste of the cold 
and phlegmatic New Englander. It is to be regretted 
that so little is known about McDuffie's character and 
career outside of the halls of Congress. " He was a 
spare, grim looking man, who was an admirer of Milton 
and who ■^as never known to jest or smile." ^ He was 
taciturn, reserved, seemed to commune with himself; 
yet he was a man of strong feeling, and was easily 
affected. A visit with an old schoolmate to the scenes 
of his school days could soften his stern expression and 
move him to tears. 

McDuffie entered Congress in 1821,^ succeeding his 

^ Quincy, Figures of the Past, 283. 

2 Ben Perley Poore, Perley''s Retninisceiices, I. 81. 

3 Since there is no formal biography of McDuffie, a few notes Sketch of 
may here be presented. McDuffie is said to have been born in McDuffie. 
Columbia County, Georgia, about 1788. For a while he clerked in 

the store of James Calhoun, in Augusta. We next find him at 
William Calhoun's, in Abbeville County, South Carolina, where he 
had been taken to board, so that he might attend the famous Wad- 
dell School at Wilmington. At this school he was a noted boy, 
and in after years was remembered as one of its hghts. In De- 
cember, 181 1, he entered the Junior Class at the South Carolina 
College, where he was acknowledged to be first. He graduated 
in 1812 with first honors, his graduating speech, as fate would have 
it, being on the " Permanence of the Union." Admitted to the 
bar in 1814, he settled in Pendleton, became a candidate for Soli- 
citor, was defeated, and then settled down to practice with Colonel 
Simkins, of Edgefield. With him he entered into a large practice, 
had access to a fine library, and had an opportunity to mingle in the 
very best society. His rise was rapid. In 1818 he was elected to 
the State Legislature, serving his term in the Lower House as one 
of its very conspicuous members. In 1821 he began his career in 



38 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. in. 



Mc Duffle's 
principles. 



McDuffie on 
protection. 



friend and law partner, Colonel Eldred Simkins. He 
began his career thoroughly imbued with the liberal 
principles of the Calhoun school. To the end he main- 
tained a modern attitude on certain questions, and was 
driven from his high ground only by the unwise aggres- 
sion of the protectionists and the blind attacks of the 
abolitionists. 

It is not necessary that we should follow McDuffie, or 
any of the other South Carolina representatives, through 
those parts of their arguments in which they vigorously 
and ably attacked the protective system on general 
economic grounds. We are concerned only with those 
passages that deal with the particular grievances of 
South Carolina and indicate the state of mind of the 
people. Government, said McDuffie, could not exist 
upon a system of taxation which perverted the powers 
granted for national objects to the oppression of one 
part of the Union for the benefit of another. He 
warned Congress that his constituents could not be ex- 
pected to remain calm spectators of a ceremony by 
which their agricultural and commercial interests were 
sacrificed to Boston monopolies. If the councils of the 
country were ever to be distracted, they would be dis- 

Congress, serving his State ably till 1834, when he became Gover- 
nor. From 1836 to 1842 he was in retirement, but came out in the 
latter year to enter the United States Senate. In 1846 his health 
failed. He resigned, and till 1S51 was httle more than a dying 
man, A duel with Colonel Cummings, of Georgia, about 1822, 
resulted in a spinal wound which affected McDuffie's health, and 
probably materially altered his disposition. He is said to have 
shown no irritability up to the time when he was wounded. The 
duel was brought on by a dispute arising out of the rivalry be- 
tween Crawford and Calhoun for the Presidency, but the indiscre- 
tion of friends of both parties was largely responsible. In 1829 
McDuffie married a member of a wealthy family, a daughter of 
Colonel Richard Singleton. McDuffie's daughter was married to 
Colonel Wade Hampton. O'Neall, Bench and Bar of South Caro- 
lina, II. 463-468. 



1824-33] EXPORT TAX THEORY. 39 

tracted by measures of that description. All the sordid Mercenary 
and mercenary principles of human nature unavoidably P'^'^'^'P ^^' 
mingled in such discussions. " In the very nature of 
things, it must be a conflict into which no sentiment of 
patriotism can enter ; a conflict between a self-interested 
majority on the one hand, attempting to disguise under 
the pretence of some public and patriotic motive the true 
character of the measure ; and of an oppressed minority 
on the other, equally outraged by the injuries inflicted 
and the mockery of flimsy pretences by which their 
understandings are insulted. Such a contest has all the 
elements of settled hostility and permanent alienation 
of feeling without anything to soothe the angry passions 
it necessarily brings into action." ^ 

To illustrate the operation of the tariff, McDuflie The export 
elaborated his famous "export tax" or "40 bale" theory, *^^ ^ ^°^^' 
maintaining that an import duty imposed upon articles 
of foreign merchandise, received in exchange for the 
domestic produce of the planting States, was precisely 
equivalent — our commercial relations being what they 
then were — to an export duty levied upon the pro- 
ducts of those States.^ 

It would be tedious to follow McDuffie through the 
elaborate and ingenious argument in which he undertook 
to sustain his proposition. He advanced it first in 1830, 
but found later that he had left out a very important 
consideration, and so in 1832 he returned to the task 
and perfected his theory.^ We need notice here only 
his conclusion that the actual operation of the protect- 
ive system, stripped of all disguises, was such as to 
raise the entire amount of the federal taxes upon one 
fifth of the products of the Union, and to leave four 

1 Congressional Debates^ 19 Cong., 2 sess., 1007 (1826-27), 

2 Ibid., 21 Cong., i sess., 844 (1S29-30). 

3 Ibid., 843-847, 3142-3150. 



40 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. in. 



The South 
oppressed. 



The South 

cannot 

submit. 



fifths exempt. How much truth there was in the theory- 
will be a matter for discussion later. It is sufficient 
here to note that it obtained very wide acceptance in 
South Carolina. 

Having thus demonstrated the truth of his proposi- 
tion to his own satisfaction, and to that of many of his 
constituents, McDuffie proceeded next to argue that 
there could be no protection against such injustice 
through ordinary legislative channels. It was clear to 
his mind that, owing to the extent of the country, there 
were two great interests which were diametrically and 
irreconcilably opposed to each other: the manufactur- 
ing interest of the North, which could not hold its own 
against foreign competition without the aid of bounties ; 
and the agricultural interest of the South, which could 
buy and sell more satisfactorily in foreign markets. 
That power should be lodged with one to deal with the 
other as it saw fit, he held unjust. And was it not patent 
to all that such was the case? It was of no consequence 
that the South had fifty or sixty representatives in Con- 
gress out of two hundred and thirteen, for those who 
passed protective measures had no sympathy for cotton 
growers. " What nonsense would it be to talk of rep- 
resentative responsibility when those who destroy our 
prosperity believe it to be their interest and their right 
and duty to destroy that prosperity ! If, sir, as the advo- 
cates of this tariff allege, it is the interest of two thirds of 
this Union to destroy the prosperity of the other third, 
. . . would it be possible for the other third to submit 
to a practical interpretation of the compact of the Union, 
by which the right of the two thirds would be recognized 
to destroy the other? "^ The South had no security 
against taxation but the will of those who had a settled 
interest in increasing its burdens. There could be no 
more insulting mockery than to tell his constituents that 

1 Congressional Debates, 20 Cong., i sess., 2404 (1827-28). 



1827-30.] MINORITY RULE. 41 

they were secured by the principle of representative 
responsibility, when the men who inade the laws were 
responsible only to those who were clamoring for 
higher impositions. The people of the South could The South 
not manufacture ; all their habits disqualify them for ^^^^l^^^^- 
the business. They could not rival the manufactories 
of Europe or of the North.^ Continue the system, and 
his State would be ruined. They could not resort to 
other employments. Could it be expected that they 
would abandon their lands, free their slaves, and seek 
their fortunes in other lands? " No, sir, our citizens 
would sooner perish than be thus driven from their 
rightful inheritances and the homes of their fathers by 
this unrighteous system of oppression." ^ 

To the objection that the majority must govern, Minority rule 
McDuffie ingeniously replied that the principle was true ^'Ivocated. 
where it applied, but that it was subject to two limita- 
tions. The first limitation was the Constitution ; that 
charter was founded upon the conviction that an un- 
checked majority was as dangerous as an unchecked 
minority. In the second place, the right of a majority 
to govern, in a political system composed of confeder- 
ated sovereigns and extended sections having different 

^ This was uttered in 1830. In 1828 he had threatened the 
protectionists with the prospect of the South's changing its whole 
economy, and becoming the rival of the North. The South, he 
said, would be driven to make the experiment of manufacturing with 
slave labor. Slave labor could manage the ordinary operations of 
machinery better than Northern labor. Nothing but an experiment 
was needed to prove that the South could drive the North out of 
its own market, at least. By 1S30 McDuffie had examined the sub- 
ject more closely, and had discovered that slavery would prevent 
an experiment being made. This change affords a striking illus- 
tration of that unsteadiness of McDuffie's mind to which Josiah 
Quincy alluded. — Congressional Debates, 20 Cong., i sess., 2400 
(1827-28). 

2 Ibid., 21 Cong., I sess., 845 (1829-30). 



42 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



Protest 

against the 

majority 

principle. 



Comparison 
with the 
Colonies. 



interests, was limited to cases where interests were com- 
mon. McDuffie seems to have been unconscious that 
he was assuming a great deal in stating that our political 
system was a confederation of sovereigns ; nor did he 
appear to himself to be absurd in claiming for the 
minority a right which could not safely be intrusted 
to the majority. In denying to the majority the right 
to govern, he was only following in the footsteps of 
Calhoun, who had elaborated the doctrine of minority 
rule in the Exposition of 1828, and of Senator William 
Smith, who was especially emphatic on the subject in his 
remarks on presenting South Carolina's protest in 1829. 
*' I, as Senator from South Carolina, announce to you 
that South Carolina can never consent to that doctrine, 
to that dangerous principle, that a majority shall rule. 
If a majority is to rule, away with your Constitution at 
once. All governments have fundamental principles, 
and so far as those of this government are correct 
South Carolina agrees with them, but she protests 
against the principle that a majority shall rule." ^ 

The Southern States, McDuffie concluded, were in 
very much the same relation to the North as the Colo- 
nies were to Great Britain, the difference being that 
the tribute exacted from the South for the benefit 
of the North amounted to more in a single year than 
all the impositions placed upon the Colonies from the 
time of the Stamp Act to the breaking out of the Revo- 
lution.2 Oppression had been carried to an extremity. 
South Carolina understood her position, and would main- 
tain it regardless of consequences. 

Truly, if the foregoing representations were correct, 
if McDuffie's conclusions were sound, then the peo- 
ple of South Carolina would have been justified in 



1 Congressional Debates^ 20 Cong., 2 sess., n (1828-29). 

2 Ibid., 21 Cong., i sess., 859 (1829-30). 



I828-33-] MCDUFFIE'S FALLACY. 43 

resorting, not only to every constitutional means of McDuffie's 
resistance, but also at once to the right of revolution, ^ ^^^' 
which belongs to every people suffering intolerable 
oppression. But, unfortunately for South Carolina, 
McDuffie was not infallible. His export tax theory was 
skilfully constructed, and was in the main quite sound ; 
but it had no application to the period in question. 
The weak point in his position is that the trade rela- 
tions were not such as he assumed ; and this breaks 
the force of his argument. He assumed that the United 
States was exporting more than it was importing; that 
consequently specie was flowing in ; that prices were 
falling abroad and rising at home : but this assumption 
was not warranted by the facts. The report of the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury shows that, during the period in 
question, (from 182 1 to 1833, inclusive,) the total value 
of all imports, exclusive of specie and bullion, was 
$1,039,000,000; and of all exports, exclusive of specie 
and bulHon, $933,200,000; leaving a balance on the side 
of imports of $105,800,000. During the same period, 
the imports of specie and bullion were $89,000,000, 
and the exports were $98,600,000, leaving an excess of 
specie exports of $8,800,000.^ The facts were against 
McDuffie's contention; the conditions were such as to 
cause a rise of prices abroad and a fall at home, and not 
a rise at home and a fall abroad. It was not till after 
1833, and then for only a few years, that there was any 
considerable excess of imports of specie and bullion 
over exports. 

Cotton was, of course, the commodity the price King Cotton. 
of which McDuffie had particularly in mind; and he 
pointed to the considerable decline in the price of that 
product through 1821-33, as an illustration of his point. 
Undoubtedly, the fall in the price of cotton during 

1 Report of the Secretary of the Treasttry, 1854-55, pp. 105, 109, 
"3- 



44 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



Price of 
cotton. 



Influence 
of the tariff 
exaggerated. 



that period was very great; but a mere glance at the 
statistics reveals the secret. In 1821 the production 
of cotton in the United States was 124,900,000 pounds, 
and the average price was 16^ cents; in 1832 the pro- 
duction was 322,200,000 pounds, and the average price 
was 9| cents. The production had more than doubled ; 
the price had fallen considerably less than one half. In 
1823 the production was 173,700,000 pounds, and the 
average price was ii| cents; in the following year the 
production was 142,000,000 pounds, and the average 
price was 15I cents. ^ McDuffie does not appear to have 
been impressed with the relation between the price and 
the supply. No time need be wasted in arguing that in 
that relation is the true explanation of the fall in price 
which gave him so much concern. 

It would seem, therefore, that the statesman and his 
followers very greatly exaggerated the influence of the 
tariff; and it is said that McDuffle, towards the close of 
the controversy, admitted that he had been led too far. 



* Report of the Secretary of the Treasury^ 1855-56, p. ii6. 
following figures may be interesting : — 



The 





Millions 


Average 


Value 




Millions 


Average 


Value 


Year. 


o£ 


Price in 


in 


Year. 


of 


Price in 


in 




Pounds 


Cents. 


Millions. 




Pounds. 


Cents. 


Millions. 


1821 


124,9 


16.2 


20,0 


1838 


595.9 


10.3 


61.5 


1822 


144.7 


16.6 


24,0 


1839 


413.6 


14.8 


6r,2 


1823 


1737 


II.8 


20,4 


1840 


743.9 


8-5 


63.9 


1S24 


142,0 


15.4 


21,9 


1S41 


530.0 


10.2 


54.3 


1825 


176,4 


20.9 


36,8 


1842 


584.7 


8.1 


47,6 


1826 


204,5 


12.2 


25,0 


1843 


792.0 


6.2 


49.1 


1827 


294.3 


lO.O 


29,0 


1844 


663,6 


8.1 


54.1 


1828 


210,6 


10.7 


22,4 


1845 


872,9 


5-9 


51,7 


1829 


264,8 


lO.O 


26,6 


1846 


547.5 


7.8 


42,7 


1830 


298,5 


9.9 


29.7 


1847 


527,0 


10.3 


53.4 


1831 


276,9 


91 


25.3 


184S 


814,0 


7.6 


61.9 


1832 


322,2 


9.8 


Z^^l 


1849 


1026,6 


6.4 


66,4 


1833 


3^4.7 


II. I 


36,2 


1850 


635.4 


II-3 


71.9 


X834 


384.7 


12.8 


49.4 


1851 


927,2 


12. 1 


112,3 


183s 


387.3 


16.8 


64,9 


1852 


1093,2 


8.0 


87,9 


1836 


423,6 


16.8 


71.3 


1853 


I II 1,6 


9.8 


109,4 


1837 


444,0 


14.2 


63,0 


1854 


987,8 


9.4 


93.6 



I82I-33] INFLUENCE OF TARIFF EXAGGERATED. 45 

Still South Carolina undoubtedly had some cause for The South 
complaint. It can scarcely be maintained that the State hll'h duties, 
received any benefit from a high tariff: she had no 
manufactured products to protect, and was not likely 
to have any so long as she fought against any change 
in her social and political system. With slavery, manu- 
facturing on any considerable scale was impossible. A 
community which, a few years later, had to be rebuked 
by its Governor for unreasoning prejudice against the 
mercantile class, and which at the same time was urged 
not to send its young men North to imbibe false notions 
with respect to the " peculiar institution," was scarcely 
one which was likely to catch the manufacturing craze. 
Since, therefore, the State could not manufacture, it was 
natural that she should object to commercial restric- 
tions merely that another section might prosper ; it was 
natural for her to contend that she should be allowed to 
buy and sell where she pleased. 

Furthermore, South Carolina undoubtedly had a right Conduct of 
to complain of the selfishness and the overbearing dispo- irrkatme"*'^ 
sition of the majority. That majority was sectional ; and 
South Carolina felt that there was very little likelihood 
that it would ever take a broad, patriotic view of affairs, 
or that it could be held in check by any ordinary means. 
The State, therefore, became violently irritated and lost 
her head. This was extremely unfortunate ; for, by this 
time, there were signs that the excesses of the ma- 
jority would lead to a reaction throughout the country. 
The State should have possessed her soul in patience. 
But a disposition to possess her soul in patience has 
never been considered the most striking characteristic 
of South Carolina ; and it was not likely to seize her 
when she saw herself steadily falling behind other 
States, both industrially and politically. Falling behind 
she undoubtedly was, not, as has just been pointed out,^ 
1 See above. 



46 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



Decline of 

South 
Carolina. 



Slave-holding 
communities. 



from the effects of the tariff, but from deeper causes 
that must now be indicated. 

That Soutli CaroHna was on the decline, or at least 
that she was not advancing, was a fact noticed by 
nearly all thoughtful men in the State. The accom- 
plished scholar and jurist, Hugh S. Legare, writing 
in 1834, lamented that the soil of the low country had 
worn out; the old fields, he said, had been left to run 
to waste and " thickets of stunted loblolly pines, half 
choked with broom-grass and dog-fennel," had taken 
possession.^ The whole population about the Wateree 
and Congaree had been represented to him as breaking 
up and moving en masse to the West At first, he said, 
the deserted settlements were only in Goose Creek, 
Williamsburg, and Saint Stephen's ; but later the disease 
appeared to him universal.- In the convention of 1833, 
J. L. Wilson, of Charleston, spoke to the same effect. 
He represented many of the fields as being deserted, 
the labor as fleeing to Alabama, Louisiana, and else- 
where, the cities as falling into ruin, and the commerce 
as destroyed. Much of the injur\% he added, might be 
put down to the withdrawal of capital due to the opera- 
tion of the tariff.^ 

The low country', where slaves were more numerous, 
suffered more than the western part of the State. The 
decrease in population was very marked in Charleston 
District, and began to show itself long before the tariff 
bill of 1828 became a law. A census of the State in 
1829 showed an increase of whites in a lower district 
of only 43 in the nine previous years, and a decrease 
in Charleston District of 2,000.* From 1790 to 1800 



* Legard, Works, I. 218. 

* Ibid., 221. 

* Jou7-nal of the South Carolina Convetifion ofl8S3, p. 30. 

* In James Hamilton's Speech at Walterborough, Oct. 21, 1828, 
■we get the same picture, a trifle more highly colored. He says : 



economic evil. 



1790-1S34.] ECONOMIC EVIL. 47 

the white population of the State had increased 40 per population 

cent, and the slaves 36 per cent; from i8co to 18 10, the ^"^^ wealth. 

white 9 per cent, and the slaves 34 per cent; from 18 10 

to 1820, the white ii per cent, and the slaves 32 per 

cent; from 1820 to 1830, the white 8 per cent, and the 

slaves 22 per cent; and from 1830 to 1840, the whites 

only 0.5 per cent and the slaves but 3 per cent. In 

1820 the lots in the upper division of the State were 

valued at $1,389,406, and in the lower at $8,587,663; 

in 1825, in the same divisions, at $1,766,472, and 

$9,272,684; and in 1834, at $1,944,340, and $8,353,403.1 

In 1820, the lands in the upper division were valued at 

$4,562,897, and in the lower at $5,852,251 ; in 1825, at 

$4,592,011, and $5,808,020; and in 1834, at $4,839,121, 

and $5,252,74612 

All these facts point in the strongest possible manner Slavery the 
to the real cause of the backwardness of South Carolina, 

"The consciousness that South Carolina was sinking had davi^ned 
upon them suddenly. Did they want the melancholy signs of 
coming decay, let them look abroad through the land and see 
the wilderness regaining her empire ; let them look at the waste 
and desolate spots that had lately teemed with life and fertility. 
Where were the beautiful homesteads and venerable chateaux 
which once thronged the land ? * On the very hearthstone where 
hospitality once kindled the most genial fires that ever blazed on 
her altars, the fox may lie down in security and peace, and from 
the mouldering casement of the very window from which the notes 
of virtuous revelry were once heard, the owl sends forth to the 
listening solitude of the surrounding waste her melancholy descant 
to mark the spot where desolation has come.' If such signs 
were not enough, let them look at their metropolis, designed to 
be the emporium of three States, lately visited by every flag of 
the civilized world, and where were the ships, the capital, the 
merchants ? All gone in the ruin of its foreign trade ; and with 
them, the hopes of the people." See Tariff Disaissions {iZ'z'j-'yL)^ 
pamphlet in Harvard College Library (Library No. VL 4706). 

^ Seventh Census, Compendium, 340. 

2 Comptroller's Reports, in South Carolina Laws (1820, 1825, 
1834). 



48 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



Slavery 
fundamental. 



The 

institution 
threatened. 



Panama 
debate. 



namely, the existence of slavery; and it seems to us 
now rather remarkable that McDuffie and Legare and 
others could dwell so constantly on the situation and 
fail to see that slavery was the fundamental factor. 
Slavery, as has been said, ^ made it inevitable that the 
South should rely mainly on one commodity, the price 
of which was steadily falling, because of the opening 
up and cultivation of fresher lands in the West. South 
Carolina recognized early that slavery prevented the 
introduction of manufacturing, and therefore rendered 
acquiescence in the protective policy impossible. It 
soon became obvious that there was a conflict of inter- 
ests ; but it does not seem to have occurred to her that 
slavery was, in itself, an economic evil. 

If there had been no slavery, there might still have 
been very considerable opposition to the tariff in the 
South, because the Southern soil was naturally better 
adapted to agriculture than the Northern, and this, of 
itself, would have tended to delay the development of 
manufacturing interests. One thing, however, is quite 
certain : but for slavery the opposition to the tariff in 
South Carolina would not have been so unanimous, and 
would not have gone to the same lengths. As it was, 
every discussion directed attention more and more 
strongly to slavery. At first it was recognized as the 
institution which rendered a conflict of interests inevi- 
table. Next it was felt that every question that was 
raised involved it in a very definite way, and that either 
the policy of the general government or the institution 
would have to be given up. Slavery thus became a 
conscious element in the struggle. 

The Panama debate, in 1826, fixed public attention 

on the subject, and drew out some remonstrances and 

threats from the South; but there does not seem to 

have been a great deal of uneasiness till later. Hayne 

^ See above, p. 41. 



1826-27.] 



SLAVERY THREATENED, 



49 



and McDuffie, in 1826, apprehended no violation of The South 
the constitutional rights of the South; but before 1833 ^'^°"^^'^- 
their views had undergone a radical change. There 
were many others in the State who had been seriously 
alarmed from the time the subject first came up for 
discussion in 1826. The Charleston Mercury, July 28, 
1826, contained a communication warning the people of 
their danger. " The negro bigot still prates of the ab- 
stract rights of man; and from the village pulpits to 
the halls of Congress, in defiance of the Constitution, 
we hear the enunciation of sentiments that can only 
breed among us insurrection and bloodshedding." 
The interests of the South, the writer continued, had 
been disregarded; wealth had been extorted by a 
vicious and unjust tariff; and the Constitution had 
been unduly extended in still other directions. There 
was but one source of salvation, — the talent of the 
Carolina Representatives, That alone could preserve 
the Union, " Superiority in talent may counterpoise 
superiority in numbers. We have not hitherto been 
blind to this policy." ^ 

In 1827 appeared a series of articles which probably "The Crisis." 
had more influence than all others. These were " The 
Crisis," or " Essays on the Usurpations of the Federal 
Government, by Brutus." ^ Through thirty-one num- 



^ Charleston Mercury, July 28, 1826. 

2 " Brutus " was Robert J. Turnbull, of Charleston. His father 
had moved to Charleston from East Florida in 1780. The son's 
first act of manhood was, as he himself stated, to take an oath to 
support first the Constitution of South Carolina, and, second, 
that of the United States. He could not, he added, forget the 
supremacy of his first oath. Turnbull was one of the most popu- 
lar of the anti-Union leaders, taking rank with James Hamilton, Jr., 
Hayne, and McDufifie. He was a devout follower of Jefferson, 
from whom he claimed to have received his doctrine. He lived to 
see his principles incorporated in resolutions, remonstrances, and 
protests. Immediately after reading the President's proclamation, 

4 



Sketch of 
Turnbull. 



50 



CAUSES. 



[Ch. III. 



Phantom of 
consolidation. 



Unwarranted 
powers. 



Secession 
advocated. 



bers, and more than one hundred and fifty pages, 
" Brutus " poured out a torrent of rhetoric against the 
policy of the general government, and called upon his 
fellow citizens to resist. " Brutus " dealt sledge-hammer 
blows and struck at every evil in sight in such a bold, 
fearless, direct manner as to win the unbounded ad- 
miration of the masses. The phantom of consolidation 
was brooding over his faculties ; the government, he 
argued, had made more rapid strides towards consoli- 
dation in the six years since 1821 than in the thirty 
preceding; it was to the interest of the North and West 
for the general government to usurp powers and depart 
from the social compact. 

The South, therefore, from every consideration, should 
oppose the doctrine of implied powers ; and this dan- 
gerous doctrine " Brutus" proceeded to discuss in every 
aspect through eighty long pages. Hostility to the 
South was manifest, he added, not simply in the ten- 
dency of the government to go beyond its powers in 
the matter of the tariff and internal improvements; the 
presses were belching anathemas against the Southern 
system and the Southern policy; insurrectionary doc- 
trines were being promulgated in a thousand ways; 
an insidious attack was meditated against the tran- 
quillity of the South. "The time approaches when 
Congress can take no vote that shall not be an expres- 
sion of opinion on the subject of slavery. TJie South 
should not permit any expression of opinion whatever ; 
but should the subject be discussed, there should be but 
one sentiment as to what should be the consequence." 

There was no time for delay. Congress must not have 
an opportunity to express an opinion against slavery as 
an evil. " It will be an act of decided, unequivocal 

he offered his services to Governor Hayne, requesting to be attached 
to the corps which should be assigned to the post of greatest dan- 
ger. He died on June 14, 1833. 



1827-28.] SILENCE OR SECESSION. 5 1 

hostility. It will be a declaration of War and must be Discussion 
treated and resisted as such. It will be the Entering ^"Serous, 
Wedge, with which at some future day our vital in- 
terests are to be Split asunder. It will be the Landing 
of an enemy, and a bitter enemy too, on our soil. . . . 
He must be resisted. There must be no discussion. 
Discussion will cause Death and Destruction to our negro 
property. . . . The Colonization Society must be driven 
out of the Halls of Congress, and driven out with Disgrace. 
Should Congress ever countenance it, my wishes will be 
for Disunion . . . Let us say then, ' Hands off — mind 
your own business — attend to your own Post Office.' 
If this fails, let us separate. It is not a case for reason- 
ing or negotiation. It must be a word and a blow. The 
man who comes into my yard and preaches to my slaves, 
must not expect to go out with whole bones." ^ 

Further proof of the proposition that slavery was South 
a conscious element in the nullification controversy Legislauire 
might be gathered from contemporary speeches. It o" slavery, 
is sufficient to note that " Brutus's " views were em- 
bodied in the resolutions of the South Carolina Legis- 
lature in 1828. Congress, it was resolved, has no 
power to meliorate the condition of free colored or 
slave property. On this subject there can be no rea- 
soning between South Carolina and any other govern- 
ment. It is a question altogether of feeling. " Should 
Congress claim the power to discuss and take a vote 
upon any question connected with domestic slavery 
of the Southern States, it is not for your committee 
to prescribe what course ought to be adopted to coun- 
teract the evil and dangerous tendency of public dis- 
cussions of this nature. The minds of our citizens 
are already made up that, if such discussion appertain 
as a matter of right to Congress, it will be neither more 

1 See The Crisis, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 25, 26, 27. The Italics in the 
forec^oins: extracts are the author's. 



52 CAUSES. [Ch. III. 

nor less than the commencement of a system by which 
the pecuhar pohcy of South CaroHna, upon which is 
predicated her resources and her prosperity, will be 
shaken to its very foundation. In the opinion of yonr 
committee, there is nothing in the catalogue of hnman 
ills which may not be preferred to that state of affairs in 
which the slaves of our state shall be encouraged to look 
for any melioration itt their condition to any other body 
than the Legislature of South Carolina. Your Committee 
forbear to dwell on this subject. It is a subject on which 
no citizen of Sou tit Carolina needs instruction. One com- 
mon feeling inspires us all with a firm determinatio7t 
not to submit to a species of legislation which woula 
light up such fires of intestine commotio?! in our borders 
as ultimately to consume our country !' ^ 

1 Resolutions, in South Carolina Laws, 1828. The Italics are 
those of the author of this monograph. 



CHAPTER IV. 

SOUTH CAROLINA'S CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 
1823-1828. 

The political attitude of South Carolina up to about Change 
1823 had been based partly on old Federalist tradi- °^P°^'^y- 
tions, partly on the leadership of the remarkable body 
of young men who came into public life about 1812, but 
principally on a belief among very influential men that 
the interests of the State were best served by a broad 
and national policy. As we have just seen, however, 
soon after 1820 both the economic and the political 
condition of the country began to alter; on one side 
the North was calling for an extension of freedom; on 
the other side, the South began to be conscious of the 
danger to slavery. The inevitable result was a revul- 
sion in the policy of the State : notwithstanding a 
stubborn resistance by a considerable minority, the 
ten years from 1823 brought the State to the issue of 
Nullification. 

The first warning that South Carolina was to break Mitchell leads 
away from the liberal leadership of Calhoun, Mc- JongrYss'" 
Duffie, and others was given by Thomas R. Mitchell 
in the House of Representatives in 1823. His speech 
sounded a new note from South Carolina.^ For the 
first time, so far as appears, was the constitutional ob- 

1 The Mitchell to whom Mr. Adams refers in his Memoirs as 
" a good-humored man, and of very good talents." J. Q. Adams, 
Memoirs^ VIII. 449. 



follows. 



54 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. [Ch. IV. 

jection to a tariff measure raised by one of her repre- 
sentatives. His words, therefore, have a significance not 
measured by Mitchell's lack of eminence. " He was 
opposed to the measure," he said, " because it would 
graft into our government the restrictive system, the 
pernicious effects of which had been experienced by 
every nation which had adopted it to any extent; and 
because there were constitutional difficulties to its 
passage, in his mind. . . . The gentleman may bap- 
tize the bill as he pleases, and it will still be a bill 
to enrich one branch of industry at the expense of 
another ; to tax agriculture and commerce for the 
benefit of manufactures." ^ 
Hamilton This year Mitchell stood alone, but the following 

year, in the session of 1823-24, he was joined by James 
Hamilton, Jr. and Robert Y. Hayne. These two, the 
former a Representative, the latter a Senator, at once 
began to organize a systematic opposition to the cen- 
tralizing policy of the government. Their speeches 
on the tariff bill of 1824 are worthy of notice, because 
for the first time we get a glimpse of the principles 
which they endeavored to apply in 1833. Hamilton 
was the more emphatic of the two. " The encourage- 
ment of manufactures," he said, " is destructive of that 
uniformity of taxation which is the imperative precept 
of the Constitution. The cunning implication by which 
you get at this power only adds a mockery to an un- 
justifiable wrong. . . . But the objects of this Con- 
federacy furnish the principles for the interpretation of 
the instrument. We are independent States, and our 
league merely looks to common defence, external and 
internal commerce, an army, navy, judiciary, and the 
powers necessary to carry these objects into effect. No 
one member of this Confederacy could have contem- 

1 Annals of Cong., 17 Cong., 2 sess,, 1002 (1822-23). 



1823-24.] CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED. 55 

plated joining a union in which * the common defence 
and general welfare ' meant a sacrifice of any part of it 
under fanciful and arbitrary considerations of * good of 
the whole,' We are not a consolidated empire, and 
consequently we have no right partially to oppress any 
portion of the state, however trifling may be the inter- 
est violated. . . . But on the ground of expediency, is 
it nothing to weaken the attachment of one section of 
this country to the bond of union? . . . Let no man, 
however, tax me with holding incendiary doctrines; 
I know that South Carolina will cling to this Union as 
long as a plank of it floats on the troubled ocean of 
events. I know her lofty nationality and generous 
patriotism." ^ Rarely has a great prophet worked 
harder than did Hamilton to blast his own reputation. 

Hayne's remarks were in the same strain, and furnish Hayne 
a fitting prelude to his constitutional exposition on the f°'^°^^' 
floor of the Senate six years later. Where, he asked, 
did the government get the power to adopt a system 
to encourage a particular branch of industry? To say 
that government had the right to encourage certain 
pursuits and to prohibit others, was to make it, not 
merely a consolidated, but an unlimited government. 
** Gentlemen surely forget that the supreme power is 
not in the government of the United States. They 
do not remember that the several States are free and 
independent sovereigns, and that all power not ex- 
pressly granted to the federal government is reserved 
to the people of those sovereigns." ^ 

When we compare these utterances of Mitchell, a remarkable 
Hamilton, and Hayne in 1823 and 1824 with those of ^^^"g^- 
Simkins, McDuffie, and Calhoun in 18 17, we observe a 
remarkable change. And these speeches, as we shall 

^ Annals of Cong., 18 Cong., r sess., 2208 (1823-24). 
2 Ibid., 648. 



56 



CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 



[Ch. IV. 



William 
Smith 
opposes 
Calhoun. 



Thomas 
Cooper. 



see, only reflected the sentiments which had begun to 
spread among the people of South Carolina eight years 
earlier, and which by this time were probably entertained 
by the majority. Let us turn now to trace this change 
within the State. 

To Judge William Smith must be assigned the prin- 
cipal place in organizing the movement, and directing 
it, up to 1826. With his first political breath he com- 
menced his opposition to the policy advocated by 
Calhoun. In his maiden speech in the United States 
Senate in 18 17, he opposed the "Bonus Bill," and in 
the following year made a vigorous fight against the 
tariff. In 1823, probably because he had antagonized 
Calhoun too strongly, he was compelled to make room 
for Robert Y. Hayne. Thereupon he returned to the 
State, and organized his forces for an attack all along the 
line.^ 

Judge Smith had a valuable ally in the President of 
the South Carolina College, Dr. Thomas Cooper, of 
whom Jefferson wrote to Cabell : " He is acknowledged, 
by every enlightened man who knows him, to be the 
greatest man in America in the powers of his mind and 
in acquired information, and that without a single ex- 
ception." Perhaps we get a more correct estimate of 
the same man from President John Quincy Adams : " A 
learned, ingenious, scientific, and talented mad-cap is 
Dr. Cooper."^ Cooper was born in England in 1759, 
and was educated at Oxford. Threatened with prosecu- 
tion at home for a political tract which he published, he 
left England, and, after a short stay in France, where 
he associated on intimate terms with the Republican 
leaders, came to America in 1792. A few years later 
he took an active part in the agitation against the Sedi- 

1 O'Neall, Bench and Bar of South Carolina, I. 109; Benjamin 
F. Perry, Reminiscences, 81. 

^ La Borde, History of the South Carolina College, 163 et seq. 



1817-24.] SMITH AND COOPER. 57 

tion Act, and got himself sentenced to six months' im- 
prisonment and a fine of four hundred dollars for libel. 
After filling the Chair of Chemistry first at Dickinson 
College, Pennsylvania, and then at the University of 
Pennsylvania, he went to South Carolina to take the 
same Chair in the State College. He served as Presi- 
dent from 1820 to 1834, and at the same time delivered 
lectures on pohtics and economics.^ He printed his Cooper's 
*' Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy " in ^'"^'"S^- 
1826, and somewhat earlier a " Manual of Political 
Economy"; and in 1823 he had issued a tract "On 
the Proposed Alteration of the Tariff", submitted to the 
Consideration of the Members from South Carolina in 
the Congress of 1823-24." This was his third attempt 
to direct attention to the subject. He had published 
a similar article in the Analectic Magazine, July, 1819; 
and one in the National Intelligencer, January, 1822, 
over the signature of " Terra." 

In his economic doctrines Dr. Cooper showed him- Cooper as 
self a thorough-going advocate of laissez faire. In ^" agitator. 
the above mentioned tract,^ addressed to the South 
Carolina Congressmen, he contended that the power 
given to Congress to regulate trade and commerce 
should be construed as a reasonable discretion, to be 
exercised in conformity to the main objects of society; 
that, if regulations burdened one part of the nation's in- 
dustry more than another, they were unconstitutional 
and unjust; and that the proposed alterations would 
work this very injustice. Agriculture, he said, was the 
chief industry of the country; to foster every other 
interest at the expense of the agricultural was the very 
reverse of sound policy. Furthermore, retaliation would 
decide other nations to retaliate. The existence of 
the Southern States depended on their great staples. 

^ Pamphlet (Boston Public Library). 
2 Idt^. 



58 



CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 



[Ch. IV. 



Cooper's 
influence. 



Protests. 



Great Britain would be driven to foster Brazilian com- 
petition. " Let the Southern States look to it, . . . 
they are threatened, . . . not with taxation, but de- 
struction." ^ 

Whatever Dr. Cooper could do to spread his free 
trade principles, he did with all his might. He did 
more: he lost no opportunity to insist on the absolute 
necessity of maintaining the sovereignty of the States, 
and of resisting federal encroachment; it was he who 
created such a sensation in July, 1827, at a meeting 
in Columbia, by declaring that the State would soon 
have to calculate the value of the Union. It is cer- 
tain, then, that he had no little share in arousing in the 
people of South Carolina the feeling that there was 
oppression and danger in the policy of the general 
government. At any rate, we find such a share ascribed 
to him, in 1830, by Joel R. Poinsett in a letter to Presi- 
dent Jackson on the condition of affairs in the State : 
Poinsett wrote that he found public sentiment poisoned 
by the opinions of leading politicians and "by the per- 
nicious doctrines of the President of the College, Dr. 
Cooper, whose talents and great acquirements give 
weight to his perverse principles, and render him 
doubly dangerous."^ 

The task before Judge Smith and Dr. Cooper became 
easy in proportion as the demands of the protectionists 
became immoderate ; and moderation had now become 
a thing of the past. From 1821 to 1824 protests poured 
into Congress from almost every county of South Caro- 
lina, — from Abbeville, Charleston, Richland, Beaufort, 
Darlington, Kershaw, Sumter, Georgetown, Newberry, 
Chesterfield, Spartanburg, and others. The Congres- 
sional delegation voted solidly against the passage of 
the bill of 1824, and two of the members delivered 

^ Pamphlet (Boston Public Library). 
3 Stills, Life of Poinsett, 57. 



1S21-25.] RESOLUTION OF 1826. 59 

themseh^es of the sentiments to which attention has 
been called. But the most significant action was that 
taken by the South Carolina Legislature in the year 
following the passage of the tariff measure. 

Judge Smith was elected a member of the State House The State 
of Representatives in 1824, and on December 15, 1825, to^t^c"^*^ 
succeeded in carrying through a set of resolutions which construction, 
reversed Calhoun's policy and formally pledged the State 
to the doctrine of strict construction.^ By the passage 
of these resolutions, the State deliberately entered upon 
that course of opposition to the general government 
which ended only with the surrender at Appomattox. 
For this reason, they are deserving of extended notice. 
They declare that Congress had no power to adopt a 
general system of internal improvement; that it was 
unconstitutional for Congress to tax the citizens of one 
State to make roads and canals for citizens of another; 
and that protective duties were unconstitutional.^ The 
report which accompanied the resolutions discussed at 
length the origin of the Union, setting forth that the 
two ideas which prevailed at the adoption of the Con- 
stitution were the two, and only the two, which led to 
the calling of the Federal Convention, namely, to give 
better protection to our foreign commerce, and to prop 
up the national credit. It may be remarked here that An important 
most of the thinking and reasoning of South Carolina, fjnore^d °" 
and in fact of the Southern statesmen after 1825, is 
characterized by the same failure to recognize the very 
important distinction between the work which it was 
generally supposed that the delegates to the Consti- 
tutional Convention would do, and the work which 
they did. 

' Mr. Simkins recorded on the Journals a protest against the 
resolution. The vote stood : House, 73 to 38 ; Senate, 22 to 20. 
Niles Register, XXIX. 293. 

2 South Carolina Laws (1825), 88. 



6o 



CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 



[Ch. IV 



CaJhoun- 



Calhoun 

follows. 



Here we must turn our attention to Calhoun, and as- 
certain what part he was playing all this time. Where 
was this " leader of the South in its opposition to the 
tariff" while South Carolina was undergoing such a 
remarkable change? Is it true that the State moved 
"like a Cartesian image" under the pressure of Cal- 
houn's finger, or would there rather be more truth in 
saying that South Carolina did the pressing and Cal- 
houn the moving? A brief examination of the great 
statesman's career from 1811 to 1828, as shown in a 
previous chapter; and a comparison of his attitude with 
that of South Carolina, and of his earlier with his later 
views, will help us form a correct idea of his influence 
on the course of affairs. 

Just at what time Calhoun changed from a protec- 
tionist to a free trader, from a liberal to a conservative, 
from a liberal constructionist to a strict constructionist, 
from a progressionist to an obstructionist, has been 
difficult to determine. One thing is clear: his change 
followed that of the majority of the people of the State ; 
and whatever pressure there was, was exerted by the 
State on him, and not by him on the State. Unfortu- 
nately, Calhoun gave up his seat in Congress in 181 7, 
just at the time when we especially wish to know his 
views; and consequently we have comparatively few 
satisfactory expressions from him on questions of great 
public importance during the most interesting period 
of his career. Perhaps the expressions are the more 
scarce and the more unsatisfactor>'' during this period 
because of his aspirations for the Presidency and of a 
very natural desire not to give offence. 

Fortunately, we now have a remarkable letter,^ not 

^ Letter to Hon. Robert S- Gamett, of Virginia, dated Wash- 
ington, D. C , July 3, 1824. See Appendix A for the letter in 
fulL It was published in the Daily Advertiser of Montgomery, 
Ala., March 7, 1893. Mr. A. S. Garnett, of Lloyds, Essex County, 



i8ii-28.] CALHOUN'S RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 6l 

made public till 1893, which throws light on his attitude Letter to 

as late as the summer of 1824. In this letter Calhoun <^^a"iett m 

^ 1824. 

touches upon the fundamental prmciples underlying our 

form of government, as well as upon questions of pol- 
icy that were then before the country. After express- 
ing his complete satisfaction with the distribution of 
powers between the States and the general govern- 
ment, in the concrete as well as in the abstract, he 
turned his attention to questions more immediately 
at hand ; namely, how the line separating the powers 
of the States and the general government should be 
drawn ; or upon what principles the Constitution should 
be construed. " I can give but one solution to this in- 
teresting question, and that is, it ought to be drawn in 
the spirit of the instrument itself I know that there 
has been an anxious desire among many of our best 
patriots to devise some one general and artificial rule 
of construction to be applied to any portion of the 
Constitution, but I cannot persuade myself that it is 
practicable, and believe that all such attempts must 
end in weakening rather than strengthening the rights 
of the States. It has been said, for instance, that the 
construction ought to be invariably rigid against the 
power of the general government. ... I am forced 
to the result that any doubtful portion of the Constitu- 
tion must be construed by itself in reference to the true 
meaning and intent of the framers of the instrument, 
and consequently that the construction must, in each 
part, be more or less rigid, as may be necessary to effect 
the intention." ^ 

Calhoun then proceeded to test his general principles Calhoun and 
by his past acts. He had never uttered a word that ^^^^^'''§1^*3. 
could give offence to the most ardent defender of state 

Va., son of the Hon. Robert S. Garnett, states, in reply to my letter 
of inquiry, that the original is still in his possession. 
1 Ibid. 



62 



CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. 



[Ch. IV. 



Calhoun on 
the Bank. 



Calhoun on 
internal im- 
provements. 



rights. His views on this subject had been misrepre- 
sented to the people of Virginia. He had done no act 
which any one could condemn without condemning Jef- 
ferson and Madison and Monroe. As to the National 
Bank, Madison had approved one bill which he, Cal- 
houn, had contributed to pass, and Jefferson had ap- 
proved the extension of a branch of the old bank to 
New Orleans. When advocating the passage of the 
bill, he had said nothing which could offend any one. 
He had left the constitutional question untouched. " I 
felt satisfied that the power existed ; but at the same 
time respected those who took the opposite view, for I 
have always considered the power the least clear of 
those which have been exercised by Congress." ^ 

Calhoun in this letter next reviews his course with 
reference to the question of internal improvements. It 
had been objected, he said, that he was a friend to the 
system. Here again he shields himself with Jefferson 
and Madison and Monroe : the same objection could 
be made against every distinguished public man on the 
stage, and most of them are more deeply committed 
than he. " I have never yet committed myself beyond 
the mere right of making an appropriation. ... I am 
perfectly open to the examination of that question 
should I ever be called on to act. It is, however, due 
to candor to say that my impression is that the power 
does exist to a certain extent; but as I have always 
believed that it should not be exercised without a clear 
necessity, and as I do believe that the mere right of ap- 
plying our money, not as a sovereign without the con- 
sent of those to be affected, but as a mere proprietor with 
their consent, will be found sufficient in practice, I have 
carefully abstained from coming to any final conclusion 
until it becomes absolutely necessary." ^ It was fast 
becoming absolutely necessary; for his State found it 
1 Letter to Garnett. ^ /^/^/, 



i8il-28.] CALHOUN ON IMPLIED POWERS. 63 

desirable the very next year to declare that Congress 
had no power to adopt a general system of internal 
improvements, — that is, such a system as Calhoun had 
urged in 18 17. 

Calhoun in this letter was absolutely silent on the Calhoun on 
tariff question. But the following year a dinner was s^'^tion^l'sm. 
given to him at Abbeville, South Carolina, by his con- 
stituents. May 25, 1825 ; there he touched upon the 
tariff as well as upon all the other questions with which 
he had had to deal, holding up his course for the ap- 
proval of his constituents, and expressing no doubt as 
to their disposition.^ In June of the same year he was 
still far from sectionalism ; we find him in Augusta say- 
ing: " No one would reprobate more pointedly than 
myself any concerted union between States for inter- 
ested or sectional objects. I would consider all such 
concert against the spirit of the Constitution, which was 
intended to bind all the States in one common bond of 
union and friendship." ^ 

It is an indisputable fact that Calhoun did not find it Date of 
necessary to break with his past, and to join the oppo- ^^ftj^""'* 
sition forces of his State, till after the passage of the 
tariff act of 1828. The conditions which brought about 
the change are almost exactly as he stated them in 
his speech on the Force Bill in 1833.^ The circum- 
stances attending the passage of the tariff of 1828 
seem to have opened his eyes to the full extent of the 
danger and oppression lurking in the protective system, 
and he began to doubt whether Jackson's election would 
guarantee the desired reforms. The ambiguous con- 
duct of the supporters of Jackson had awakened his 
suspicions. And, although he did not abate his zeal 
for the election of Jackson, still he began a diligent 
scrutiny of the Constitution, in order, as he stated, to 

1 Niles Register, XXVIII. 266. " Ibid., 267. 

8 Works, II. 396, 397. 



64 CHANGE OF ATTITUDE. [Ch. IV. 

ascertain the nature of our political system. It would 
have required no spirit of prophecy to predict that the 
nature of our political system would be found, under 
such circumstances, such as to open a way of escape 
for the South. The pressure was too great : both par- 
ties had heaped on too much fuel and generated too 
much steam to permit the trouble to pass away quietly. 
Calhoun led Enough has been established as to Calhoun's course 

y IS tate. ^^ dispose of the absurd statements of Draper and 
others. Their theory of Calhoun's influence on the 
course of events in South Carolina down to 1830 was 
evolved largely from their inner consciousness and 
prejudices. It is clear that Calhoun did not take the 
initiative in opposing the aggressions of the federal gov- 
ernment till after 1828; and that the movement which 
reached its climax in 1833 was not due to mere politi- 
cal disappointment. It would be much nearer the truth 
to say that South Carolina coerced Calhoun, than to say 
that Calhoun misguided South Carolina. Further evi- 
dence on this point from Calhoun's own writings will be 
presented later, when the origin of the nullification doc- 
trine is under discussion. 



CHAPTER V. 

FORMULAS OF NULLIFICATION. 
1828-1832. 

The disorders, then, from which South Carolina was Discontent! 
suffering in 1832 were due to the policy of the cen- r°"o^ijj 
tral government in only a very slight degree, if at 
all. This was as clear a case of post hoc, ergo propter 
hoc, as one could wish. But still the majority of the 
people of South Carolina had worked themselves up, 
or had been worked up by their leaders, into believing 
that the steady encroachment of the central govern- 
ment was the source of all their woes; and it is with 
this belief, and the action that it led to, that we have 
to deal here, and not with the foundation for the belief. 
We turn now to the remedy that was adopted, — to 
its inception and development. 

Just as the full extent of the disorders was grasped Jackson 
only by degrees, so the necessity for any other than the [he State °^ 
ordinary political remedy was not seen at the outset. 
Through 1826, 1827, and 1828, even after the conduct 
of Jackson's supporters during the tariff struggle had 
alarmed the South Carolina leaders, the election of 
Andrew Jackson to the Presidency was looked upon as 
all that was needed to insure a return to the good old 
republican principles of 1798. In 1826, in an address 
before the Agricultural Society of Edisto Island, 
James Hamilton, Jr. reminded his hearers that the 
only remedy for the disease which the unholy union 
of discordant spirits had generated was the election 
of the "hero of New Orleans." He drew a striking 

S 



66 FORMULAS. [Ch. V. 

contrast between the character of Jackson and that of 
Adams, laying stress upon the extraordinary common 
sense of the former, his unbending integrity, and his 
exalted notion of honor and justice. When he thought 
of Jackson's virtues and transcendent military services, 
and when he recurred to the fact that Jackson was a 
Southern man, with Southern feelings and prejudices, 
he saw in him a man in whom the people could confide 
and by whose energies and wisdom the nation could be 
brought back to the "governance of rightful principles." 
Jackson Mr. Hamilton, the reporter assures us, resumed his 

'"^ ^ ■ seat amid the plaudits of the people, whose bosoms 

faithfully responded to the solemn and instructive truths 
he had uttered. ^ Something should be pardoned in 
this to the spirit of the Fourth of July. There was 
much rhetoric on such occasions, and from 1825 to 1828 
Jackson was the source of inspiration. He was toasted 
from one end of the State to the other. There was 
strong competition to see who could sing his praises 
loudest, and the palm fell to those who a few years 
later heaped the harshest abuse upon his head. In 
1826 Jackson was the "Saviour of the West and the 
pride of the country," a hero who was "in war as 
terrible as the roaring of a cataract, in peace as gentle 
as the unweaned lamb." In 1833, the same man was, 
in the eyes of the same men, "a President whose 
choicest aliment is human blood. "^ In 1826 these 
people believed that Jackson was of their way of think- 
ing, and would not oppose them in anything; in 1833 
they knew that he would hang them if the occasion 
should arise. 

Perhaps the most substantial indication of the strong 
sentiment of the State in favor of Jackson is the action 

1 Charleston Mercury, July 21, 1826. 

* Ibid., July 10, 1826; Proceedings 0/ ike Convention of 18S3, 
P-3I- 



1825-30.] RELIANCE ON JACKSON. 6^ 

taken by the members of both branches of the Legis- Legislature 
lature on the 19th of December, 1826. On that day, j°^s"on.^^ 
just after adjournment, a meeting was held in the 
hall of the Lower House, at which all the Representa- 
tives and Senators, except about twenty, were present ; 
and, by a vote of 135 to 2, it was resolved that the 
State of South Carolina would support Andrew Jack- 
son in the next general election. The preamble set 
forth that Jackson had contributed more to the reputa- 
tion of the country than any man since Washington; 
that he had been an advocate of public faith, of just 
laws, of sound policy, and an uncompromising enemy 
of fraud and corruption; that his would be an admin- 
istration strong in rectitude of purpose, public con- 
fidence, and affection ; and that measures would be 
recommended not to conciliate one section of the coun- 
try, but for the general good.'' The insight of this 
Legislature seems to have been better than that of the 
Legislature of 183 1. 

It would be tedious to trace the current of affection jackson 
for Jackson during the years immediately after 1826. [Jqi^*^*^'^ 
It will suffice to say that as late as 1830 it was still 
warm and rapid. In that year in the "Great State 
Rights Celebration," Robert Y. Hayne called upon 
his audience "to pour forth the acknowledgments of 
a nation's gratitude to the author of the Maysville 
Road Bill veto. . . . Great as are the claims of General 
Jackson to the gratitude of his country, this act has 
given him new titles to our regard. On no occasion of 
his eventful life has he displayed a more generous 
disregard of all selfish considerations, more exalted 
patriotism, or more heroic courage; and should this 
prove to be only the first step in a course which is to 
restore the Constitution to its original principles and 

1 Charleston Mercury.^ December 26, 1826. 



68 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Jackson 
trusted. 



Policy of 
the State. 



Reliance on 
the ballot-box 
advised. 



bring back the government to a sound and wise policy, 
the name of Jackson will go down to posterity as the 
Washington of his day and generation." ^ It may be 
wondered if Hayne recalled these words two years 
later, when he was composing his " Counter Proclama- 
tion. " As Professor Woodrow Wilson remarks, the 
people followed Jackson to Washington in 1829, and 
surely in all the procession none could be found dis- 
posed to yell more lustily or to throw their hats higher 
in the air than the South Carolinians. They had 
triumphed. Jackson was with them. Had they not 
stood by him from the beginning ? Now at last they 
would make headway against the destroyers of their 
peace and prosperity. If their idol would not openly 
come to their assistance, he would at least not offer 
any direct opposition to their plans. Their faith was 
great. We shall see with what difficulty they were 
convinced that it was misplaced. 

Although much was expected from Jackson, still it 
was thought best that the State should pursue such a 
course as might, in the mean time, defeat the policy 
of the general government, and might have also the 
effect of bringing the majority round to a more just 
line of action. What that course should be was a 
question on which great difference of opinion was 
manifested. 

In the first place, there were those who were disposed 
to trust public opinion and the ballot-box, and who 
were outspoken in their determination to oppose any 
project tending directly or indirectly to weaken the 
bonds of union. Among these men was conspicuous 
the same William Smith who, from 1820 to 1825, had 
organized the opposition to the Calhoun school. Verily 
his lines had fallen in hard places. In 1822, as we have 



Great State Rights Celebration^ 1830, Proceedings. 



1828-31.] RELIANCE ON THE BALLOT-BOX. 69 

seen, he was turned out of the United States Senate William 
because he was too narrow; in 1830 he was again fi™ency.'^°"* 
displaced, and this time because he was too broad. 
Not himself, but his masters, had changed, or at least 
they had advanced much more rapidly than he. In 
1830 he was still a strong advocate of state rights, but 
he was no nullifier. His sentiments, freely expressed, 
were that public opinion, and public opinion alone, 
could correct the abuses complained of, and that party 
violence in a single State would be worse than use- 
less. ^ Governor Taylor likewise advised reliance on 
the ballot-box. The tariff, he said, possessed the es- 
sence of tyranny ; it was the duty of the State to use 
all fair means to secure its repeal. To those who Gov. Taylor 

would go further, he would say, Look to the neighbor- opposes 
° -" ° secession. 

ing States. It would be folly for South Carolina to go 
alone. Secession would be accompanied with difficul- 
ties : the project of forming conventions and withdraw- 
ing Representatives from Congress would repeal no 
law ; the general government, if it did its duty, would 
bring about a collision. "If I have any influence, it 
will be exerted to preserve the Union. "^ The old war- 
horse, David R. Williams, also counselled moderation : Williams 

reason, he said, not force, should rule: the people had counsels 

' ' . . moderation, 

discovered that the protective system was unconstitu- 
tional because it lay heaviest on them ; war would follow 
if the Legislature should take the remedy into its own 
hands. ^ 

Working shoulder to shoulder with Smith and Taylor 
and Williams were Judge John Peter Richardson; Ex- 

' Speech at Spartanburg, August i, 183 1. Boston Public Li- 
brary Collection of Congressional Speeches (Shelf No. 4325, 107). 

2 Dinner of the Republican Light Infantry Co., Columbia, S. C. : 
The Telescope^ July 16, 1828. 

3 Reply to a Committee of Gentlemen from Union District : 
Charleston Merctay, August 27, 1828. 



70 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Union men. 



Nullification 
leaders. 



McDuffie 
suggests non- 
intercourse. 



Governor Richard J. Manning ; Congressman William 
Drayton; Judge Daniel E. Huger; the diplomat and 
statesman, Joel R.Poinsett; Judge John Belton O'Neale; 
Judge David Johnson; the brilliant lawyer, James L. 
Petigru; the jurist, Hugh S. Legar6; and able rep- 
resentatives from such families as the Presslys, the 
Pringles, the Gail lards, and the De Saussures. These 
were men who, in point of ability, were not inferior 
to the more widely known leaders of the state rights 
party, and who in point, of temperament were undoubt- 
edly better qualified to direct a constitutional govern- 
ment. As we shall see, their judgment stands out in 
striking contrast to that of their opponents. 

Opposed to these men as to the measure of resist- 
ance were, in the beginning, James Hamilton, Jr., 
frank, gallant, but too impetuous of action; George 
McDuffie, full of determination, full of fire, uncom- 
promising, but well qualified to play a part in stirring 
times ; Robert J. Turnbull, vigorous and outspoken ; 
Chancellor William Harper, a man of strong mental 
powers, comprehensive, scarcely inferior to Calhoun as 
an expounder of metaphysical doctrines; Robert Barn- 
well Smith (Rhett), hot-headed, the most extreme of 
all; Langdon Cheves, genial, broad-minded, widely 
experienced; Judge Colcock; Congressman W. D. 
Martin; Ex-Congressman Eldred Simkins; Robert 
W. Barnwell ; A. P. Butler, Pickens, Bonham, and a 
host of others. 

Down to the autumn of 1828 these leaders had not 
come to an agreement as to the best course to be 
adopted. That resistance of some kind should be made 
was the only point on which all united. Some urged 
an excise duty on the consumption of protected articles. 
McDuffie, in particular, advocated this measure:^ a 

* Dinner to McDuffie and Martin, Columbia: Charleston Mer- 
cury^ June 28, 1828. 



course 
indorsed. 



1828.] NON-INTERCOURSE SUGGESTED. 71 

heavy tax levied on Northern manufactured goods after 
they had become incorporated with the mass of the 
property of the State would, he maintained, be consti- 
tutional. This proposition received the approval of Non-inter- 
certain public meetings,^ and was indorsed by Calhoun. ^ 
The object was to exclude protected articles from the 
State. No such tax was imposed, but the object was 
attained to some extent by the action of individuals. In 
all parts of the State meetings were held and resolu- 
tions were adopted, pledging those in attendance to pur- 
chase no protected articles from the North, and to stop 
intercourse with Kentucky and adjoining States till the 
tariff was repealed. ^ At Edgefield, July 26, 1828, at a 
meeting said to have been greater than any before wit- 
nessed in South Carolina, it was resolved to suspend all 
commercial intercourse with the tariff States, and, in 
particular, to abstain from purchasing the manufactures 
of the North, and the horses, mules, hogs, and cattle of 
the West. A committee was appointed to communicate 
with committees and meetings of other Southern States 
to insure union and concert* Their proceedings had a 
decidedly revolutionary flavor about them. One can 
easily imagine the enthusiasm that was aroused when 
the leaders, having cast off their broadcloth, appeared 
defiant in the cooler and more comfortable homespun.^ 

It was apparent to some from the beginning, as it Turnbull 
soon became apparent to all, that, while homespun and state 
committees of correspondence might add color and fla- intervention, 
vor, they would be hopelessly ineffectual as measures 
to check the encroachment of the general government. 
"Brutus" in "The Crisis" was foremost in urging the 

^ Charleston Mercury, July 7, 1828. 
2 Works, VI. 57, note at end of the " Exposition." 
' Charleston Mercury, July 12, August 4, September 8, 10, and 
October 9, 1S28. 

* Ibid., August 4, 1828. 5 Ibid., July 16, 1828. 



72 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



" Resistance ' 

in 

" The Crisis.' 



Nullification 

in 

"The Crisis." 



abandonment of feeble measures, and the adoption of a 
bold and radical policy.^ He would have no temporiz- 
ing. Let the issue be squarely joined. Let the tariff 
be got rid of by Resistance, he cried. The conse- 
quences would not be awful. Let coercion be employed, 
and the government would be without power. Georgia 
resisted ; and the issue was well known. The govern- 
ment had not advanced far enough towards consolidation 
to enable it to coerce a State. If war should result, 
the government could not put the State down. This 
could be done only in case all the Southern States were 
leagued against South Carolina. ^ "The Constitution 
is a compact between the states, and there are no par- 
ties to it, excepting the people of the different states in 
their corporate capacities. " Therefore the government 
is only a trustee, to perform certain duties. The 
States being sovereign parties to the compact, it is 
their right in all instances of usurpation to remonstrate ; 
such a right belongs to the Legislature. When States 
differ as to the true intent of the compact, they should 
not look to the Supreme Court. To allow the federal 
government to appoint the Supreme Court as the arbiter 
would be to make it the sole judge in its own cause. 
It is not the business of the Supreme Court to decide 
political questions. On questions of vital interest 
there was no tribunal of last resort, and no sovereign 
State could submit such questions to any arbiter on 
earth. ^ 

Much has been written on the origin of the nullifi- 
cation doctrine. "The Crisis" has been overlooked. 
In it we find all the doctrine stated in strong, vigor- 
ous language. Only the name is wanting. Robert J. 
Turnbull, and not John C. Calhoun, gave the world the 
first formulation of the nullification doctrine. "The 



1 The Crisis, 1827. 2 /^/,/.^ Xo. ZZ- ^ ^bid., Nos. 8, 22. 



1827-28.] "THE CRISIS" ON NULLIFICATION. ^'3 

Crisis" hiad great influence; it created much excitement 

in the State; Calhoun must have seen it, and, as he Calhoun and 

uses many of its precise phrases, we are almost forced ^ ^'''*^" 

to conclude that when, after the passage of the "bill 

of abominations, " he entered upon an examination of 

the Constitution to find an ultimate remedy, he kept 

his eyes fixed upon " The Crisis. " Calhoun refined the 

doctrine, put it into shape, and elaborated it, but it 

would seem that Robert J. Turnbull was the originator 

of the South Carolina doctrine. 

Turnbull was moving too fast; the time for taking 
the ultimate step had not yet arrived; the crisis as 
yet existed only on paper. The leaders preferred to 
await the action of Congress, which would meet in 
December. Congress met; the tariff struggle began 
promptly, and ended in the defeat of the free-traders. 

On May 24, 1828, the "tariff of abominations" was Conference of 
agreed to. This was the signal for action on the caroUna 
part of the South Carolina leaders. Shortly after the delegation, 
passage of the act, all the members of the South Caro- 
lina delegation, except Senator Smith, met at Senator 
Hayne's to consult as to the course they should pursue. 
Hamilton was for acting promptly: the proper thing, 
he thought, was for the delegation to vacate their seats, 
and not to return unless specially instructed by their 
constituents so to do. As the State was laboring under 
taxation without representation, the form of represen- 
tation might as well be dispensed with. He had 
resolved to take the step himself the moment the ques- 
tion was settled, to address a letter to the Speaker, and 
vacate his seat, but had been prevented from doing 
so by Hayne, McDuffie, Martin, and Drayton. 

It was distinctly asserted at this meeting that a con- 
tinuation of the prohibitory system would lead to a 
dissolution of the Union. A long and ardent con- 
versation followed on the question of the ability of 



74 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Confidence. 



The Wal- 

terborough 

address. 



the State to sustain herself in such a contingency. 
Hamilton thought the idea that the general govern- 
ment could enforce an unconstitutional law at the 
point of the bayonet too absurd for contradiction. 
The adjoining States would not permit the recruits 
from the power-looms to march through their terri- 
tories. He had faith in the spirit of his people, and 
believed that, if South Carolina were invaded, the vic- 
tories of the loth of June, Eutaw and Cowpens, would 
be re-enacted on a larger scale. Hamilton added, 
however, that these remarks were not intended to set 
forth the propriety of separation. McDuffie applauded 
these sentiments, and said that his constituents would 
have to get another Representative, if they failed to 
resist the tendencies that would make them paupers. 
The delegation agreed to correspond with one another, 
after they returned home, to acquaint one another with 
the views of their constituents, to meet in Columbia so 
as to give any advice the Legislature might desire, to 
allay excitement till after the election, and then to let 
opinion take its course. ^ 

But the excitement was not easy to allay. The 
passage of the act of 1828 produced an outburst of feel- 
ing in the masses like that caused by the passage of the 
acts of 1824 and 1832. At Walterborough, Colleton 
County, a meeting was held on June 12, 1828, at which 
Robert Barnwell Smith (Rhett) submitted for adoption 
an address to the people of South Carolina. The 
document declared that resistance to the tariff was ad- 
vised, "not from a desire of disunion," but to bring 
back the Constitution to its original principles. 
Appeal to the courts, it declared, would be in vain : 
the decision of every court in the land upholding the 
constitutionality of the tariff could not convince the 



1 Niles Register, XXXV. 199-209. 



i82S.] "SIDNEY" ON NULLIFICATION. 75 

understandings of the people of Colleton County. 
This address was adopted unanimously/ and the Gov- 
ernor was enjoined to convene the Legislature in order 
that some definite action might be taken.^ Meetings 
held at other places made the same demand, but Gov- 
ernor Taylor was firm : the Legislature was allowed to 
stand adjourned till the regular day of meeting. 

In the mean time, a second attempt to formulate a Second 
constitutional doctrine of resistance was made. On nuinfica'ti^n °^ 
July 3, 1828, appeared in the Mercury the first of a 
series of three communications from "Sidney." This 
writer did not come to the point in his first communica- 
tion; he was laboring under excitement. South Caro- 
lina was paying one hundred thousand dollars tribute 
that a " miserable, plundering band of grovelling, sordid 
wretches " might fatten at her expense. Well might 
her people inquire as to the value of Union with such 
men. They should take their stand under the sover- 
eignty of the State, "and, if necessary, die in the 
ditch." On the 4th, the second communication ap- 
peared; and on the 8th, the third. The Legislature, 
it was suggested, should meet, enumerate the different 
tariff acts, declare them null and void, open the ports, 
and face the question like freemen. Merchants could 
then refuse to pay duties ; suits would come before the 
courts, which would declare the law unconstitutional; 
and thus a plain issue would be made up between two 
sovereign parties. One sovereign in its delegated A plain issue, 
powers declares something to be law; another in its 
reserved powers declares it to be no law: who is to 
decide } Not the Supreme Court : it is the creature 
of one of the sovereigns. Only the power that made 
the Constitution can construe it. South Carolina, 
standing upon her sovereignty, could declare the tariff 

1 Charleston Mercury^ June 18, 1828. ^ /j/^. 



^6 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Three fourths 
doctrine. 



Governor 
Taylor 
advises "In- 
terposition." 



Question of 
a tribunal. 



laws null and void, remain passive, and compel the 
general government to move. This brings the subject 
before the States. If South Carolina has one fourth 
on her side, she is safe. Three fourths must declare 
to the contrary. If the majority attempt to enforce 
what is not law, then the cause of the minority would 
be a glorious one. ^ 

This communication appeared about one week before 
Calhoun put the finishing touches on the " Exposi- 
tion. " "Sidney" may have been one of those who 
visited Calhoun at his summer home, and discussed 
with him the ultimate measures that the State should 
adopt. When the Legislature met in regular session, 
in the latter part of November, expectation was on tip- 
toe. Everybody thought something would be done; 
only a few knew what course would be taken. Governor 
Taylor, in his message, after denouncing the "tariff of 
abominations," proceeded to consider how redress might 
be obtained. He advised the Legislature to declare the 
act unconstitutional and in its judgment not binding 
on the citizens of South Carolina, to publish the decla- 
ration far and wide, to appropriate money to test the 
question before every tribunal known to the Constitu- 
tion and to the law, and to invite other States to do the 
same. The jury-box and the ballot-box, what could 
they not do ! He would not even fear to approach the 
Supreme Court of the United States. 

"The Constitution created this third power as a 
check upon the Executive and Legislative branches of 
the government, with the high office of umpirage be- 
tween the Sovereign States of which the Union is com- 
posed. " It would be humiliating to suppose that it 
could only register the behests of the co-ordinate 
branches of the government. He would oppose any 



1 Charleston Mercury, July 3, 4, 8, 1828. 



i828.] TAYLOR ADVISES INTERPOSITION. *JJ 

plan that would not be taken up by other suffering 
States, or that would excite the hostile feelings of any- 
State in the Union. "Whether the remedies proposed, Responsibil- 
or such others of a like character as your wisdom may ^^^ shifted to 
devise, are competent to remove the grievances of which ture. 
we complain; whether this question has arrived at that 
stage in which it becomes one of those great and 
extraordinary cases in which all the forms of the Con- 
stitution prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous 
to the essential rights of the parties to it — and whether 
the crisis has yet arrived when the sovereign power of 
the people of the State of South Carolina is called upon 
to judge in the last resort if the ' bargain made in the 
formation of the Constitution has been pursued or dis- 
regarded, ' will no doubt receive from you that profound 
and deliberate consideration due to their magnitude 
and importance."^ 

Governor Taylor's message might as well not have Legislature 
been written. The action of the Legislature had prac- ^^"'^^'^• 
tically been decided for it by the committee of seven,^ 
which had been appointed at the session of 1827. The 
resolution,^ which indicated the direction the work of 
the committee was to take, has little in common with 
the report which the committee submitted. The reso- 
lution, like the proposition which, as we have just 
seen. Governor Taylor submitted in his message of 
1828, truly breathed the spirit of the Virginia and 
Kentucky Resolutions. The report which the com- 
mittee submitted was the doctrine of nullification, fresh 
from the pen of John C. Calhoun. 

Calhoun's connection with the proceedings of the 
Legislature came about in this way. In the summer 
and autumn of 1828, the period of excitement following 

1 Niles Register, XXXV. 274, 275. 

2 Calhoun, Works, VI. i. « Ibid. 



78 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



interviews. 



The Fort Hill the passage of the act of 1828, many leading citizens 
of the State visited Calhoun at his residence to get 
his views as to the remedies that should be adopted. 
Unfortunately, we have neither the letters nor the diary 
of any man who took part in those conversations, but 
we know that Calhoun freely stated his opinions, and 
advised preparations for the worst. The passage of 
the act of 1828 opened his eyes to the full extent of the 
danger of the protective system and to the possibility of 
failing to secure the desired reform through the election 
of Jackson. This event he regarded as certain, but he 
thought that the part Jackson's supporters had played 
made it doubtful whether any relief could be looked for 
in that direction. James Hamilton shared this feel- 
ing with Calhoun. In a speech to his constituents 
at Walterborough, October 21, where he had gone 
directly from the mountains, probably fresh from com- 
munion with Calhoun, Hamilton lamented the fact that 
"the venerable patriot who will go into office 'by all 
our wishes blest ' must remain, in spite of his devoted 
patriotism and Roman honesty, a passive spectator of 
the conflict." ^ Calhoun therefore thought it necessary 
to seek some ultimate and more certain measure of 
security. This is the time when he turned to the Con- 
stitution for a remedy, and "directed a more diligent 
and careful scrutiny into its provisions, in order to 
ascertain fully the nature and character of our political 
system. " ^ 

1 It was in this speech of Hamilton's that the doctrine of nullifi- 
cation was first proclaimed to the people from the stump. This is 
the speech which Sargent, in his Public Men and Events^ and 
Professor Sumner, in his Life of Andrew fackson, refer to, and 
which they erroneously place in the fall of 1827. — Speech at din- 
ner given by his constituents of Colleton County, in collection of 
" Tariff Discussions," Pamphlet No. 14, in Harvard College Li- 
brary (Library No. VL 4706). 

2 Speech on the Force Bill : Works, l\. 396, 397. See above, 
p. 26. 



Calhoun 
seeks a 
remedy. 



i828.] "EXPOSITION OF 1828." 79 

Among the leading men who visited Calhoun that Calhoun 
summer and autumn was William C. Preston, a member "Exposition 
of the committee of seven. Preston asked Calhoun to °f 1828." 
give him his views on the questions before the com- 
mittee. This Calhoun did, without hesitation; and he 
was then asked to prepare a report for the committee. 
The result was the famous "Exposition of 1828." 

Calhoun's connection with this report was not known 
for some time; and the fact that he approved of the 
doctrine was not generally understood till several years 
later. As late as 1830 Judge Richardson could say: 
" If I understand aught, not one of our great statesmen 
has said that the constitutional right to nullify a fed- 
eral law is clear; and that this is the time for the 
people to practise it. Whatever obscure rumor there 
may be on the subject, we cannot trace the principle 
to any direct sanction of our esteemed Vice-Presi- 
dent." ' The very natural disinclination of the Legis- 
lature to have it known that outside aid had been 
called in, Calhoun's sense of the impropriety of lending 
the countenance of the Vice-Presidency at this time 
to a party in conflict with the general government, and, 
probably, a desire not to damage his chances for the 
succession to the Presidency, may be assigned as rea- 
sons for the fact that Calhoun's connection with the 
proceeding was for a time kept a secret. 

It will be convenient at this stage to state once for Different 
all the doctrine of nullification as it was outlined in nullification. 
the " Exposition. " It would not be possible to describe 
the forms the doctrine was made to assume by its 
different expounders. Many who undertook to explain 
it only fell into hopeless confusions and inconsisten- 
cies. It is no wonder that they did so, when such 

^ J. S. Richardson, An Address to the People : Camden Jour- 
nal, 1830. 



8o 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Nullification 
a creature of 
circumstances. 



Calhoun and 
Harper the 
expounders. 



men as Hayne and Hamilton failed at first to get a 
thorough mastery of it.^ Nullification, as Senator 
Smith remarked, was very much a creature of circum- 
stances; it required time even for able men to perceive 
its import. "Nullification assumes a new character 
and a new remedy according to the orator who declaims 
it. Chancellor Harper leaves the remedy to the native 
powers of the Constitution. . . . Governor Hamilton 
tells us we are to find an effectual remedy in the verdict 
of a jury. And yet each method is perfectly constitu- 
tional. McDufifie, in his dinner speech, comes to the 
point at once. He says: ' I will readily concede that 
a State cannot nullify an act of Congress by virtue of any 
power derived from the Constitution. It would be a 
perfect solecism to suppose any such powers were con- 
ferred by the Constitution. This right flows from a 
higher source. All that I claim for the State in this 
respect necessarily flows from the mere fact of sover- 
eignty. ' " ^ Reference will be made at a later stage to 
the confusion into which the South Carolina Legislature 
and Hayne and others fell when the fundamental prin- 
ciples of the doctrine were under consideration. Cal- 
houn and Chancellor Harper were the two masters of 
the subject. They were pre-eminently the expounders; 
and it is as an expounder, and as little else, that Calhoun 
figures in the controversy. He was not the originator 
of the doctrine, and he played scarcely any part as an 
actor in front of the scenes up to January, 1833. 

Before proceeding to outline the doctrine, a word 
must be said about a document which contains the 
most elaborate statement of nullification. This is 
Calhoun's remarkable public letter to Hamilton. Ham- 
ilton had written from Pendleton, July 31, 1832, telling 

^ See below, pages 94, 95. 

2 Senator Smith at Spartanburg, August i, 1 831. For McDuf- 
fie's speech see Charleston Mercury^ May 25, 1831. 



1831-32] 



CALHOUN AND HAMILTON. 



Calhoun's 
letter to 
Hamilton. 



Calhoun that he had just read a communication sent 
by him, in the summer of 1831, to the editor of the 
Pendleton Messenger, He felt satisfied, he said, from 
a remark of Calhoun's in the communciation, and from 
the degree of condensation, that " there were still a 
variety of lights in which the truth and vital importance 
of this highly conservative principle to the liberties of 
the state were familiar to the reflections " of Calhoun. 
Would Calhoun fill out the argument and go more into 
the detail both of the principles and the consequences of 
the doctrine? Calhoun replied from Fort Hill, August 
28, 1832, in a manner that completely satisfied Hamil- 
ton, who then asked permission to make the letter 
public. He had "risen from its perusal with a vastly 
augmented confidence in the truth and importance of 
the doctrines we believe and are ready to maintain." 
Calhoun readily gave his consent. His only fear was 
that Hamilton had over-estimated the importance of 
his views. "As to the responsibility necessarily in- 
curred in giving publicity to doctrines which a large 
portion of the community will probably consider new 
and dangerous, I feel none. I have too deep a convic- 
tion of their truth and vital importance to the Constitu- ^?^P ^°" 

'■ viction. 

tion, the Union, and the liberty of these States, to have 
the least uneasiness on the point." ^ 

The doctrine, as Calhoun unfolded it, is substan- 

1 " Important Correspondence on the subject of State Interpre- 
tation between his Excellency Governor Hamilton and Hon. John 
C. Calhoun, Vice-President of the United States, copied by the 
Pendleton Messenger, 15th September, 1832." (Boston Athenaeum 
Library, No. B 1065, No. 13.) Calhoun had brooded over his doc- 
trine so long that, as Hugh S. Legard wrote, Nullification had be- 
come with him "what the French call an idee fixe, — a monomania; 
in short, he is qtioad hoc^sl^xV mad, just as H. [Hamilton] and per- 
haps one or two more of their leaders. It is really lamentable to 
think that Calhoun's pre-eminent abilities as a politician have been 
so wofully applied." Legard, Writings, I. 217. 

6 



Calhoun's 



82 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Calhoun's 
principle. 



Calhoun's 
first in- 
terference. 



tially as follows: "The great and leading principle 
is, that the general government emanated from the 
people of the several States, forming distinct political 
communities, and acting in their separate and sover- 
eign capacity, and not from all of the people forming 
one aggregate political community; that the Consti- 
tution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to 
which each State is a party, in the character already 
described ; and that the several States, or parties, have 
a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a 
deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power 
not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort 
(to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions) ' to 
interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for 
maintaiyiing, ivithin their respective limits, the authori- 
ties, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ' " The 
general government is only the joint agent of two dis- 
tinct sovereignties. The people of each State, through 
their state government, exercise separately the powers 
reserved by the Constitution ; and through the general 
government they exercise jointly with the people of 
every other State the powers delegated.^ The Union 
is a union of States as communities, and not a union of 
individuals. There is, in fact, no direct and immediate 
connection between the individual citizens of the several 
States and the general government. ^ Should a conflict 
arise between the joint agent and one of the sovereigns, 
it follows that the power which created the joint agent 
may be invoked. The States themselves, three fourths 
of which form a power whose decrees are the Consti- 
tution itself, may be appealed to. 

How to exercise the power of interpretation a State 
alone can decide. The spirit of forbearance, as well 
as the nature of the right itself, forbids a recourse 



1 Calhoun, Works, VI. 60. 



2 Ibid., 148. 



1S32.] THE CAROLINA DOCTRINE. 83 

to any measure, except in case of dangerous infractions Calhoun 

on maniK 
of exercise. 



of the Constitution, and then only when all reasonable °" manner 



hope of redress through the ordinary channel has failed. 
But if, in the opinion of the State, matters have come 
to such a pass, it would be competent for her, in her 
sovereign capacity, in a convention specially called for 
the purpose, to declare the acts complained of null and 
void, and not binding upon her citizens. The practical 
effect of this step would be to compel the general gov- 
ernment to pause, afford an interval for compromising 
the difficulty, or to submit the question at issue to the 
principals themselves.^ This is the utmost extent of 
the power claimed for a single State. If on appeal to Three fourths 
the principals in convention assembled three fourths of doctrine. 
them decide in favor of the agent, a disputed power will 
be converted into an expressly granted po\yer, and it 
will be the duty of the aggrieved State to submit, or 
secede. 

It is objected that this course would make it possible 
for one fourth of the States to change the Constitution, 
and thus take away powers which have been granted. ^ 
The objection is specious. "The right of the State is Objections 
not to resume delegated powers, but to prevent the c'aXoun. ^ 
reserved powers from being assumed by the govern- 
ment." The right may be abused; delegated powers 
may be resumed, but the danger cannot be avoided 
without creating a greater and opposing danger. The 
denial of the right to the State would yield to the 
general government authority to assume all reserved 
powers at pleasure. It is a question of a choice of 
evils. Conceding the right to the State would be the 
lesser evil, for the great number of people by whom it 
would be exercised, the solemnity of the mode, the 
delay, the deliberation, would be conducive to calm 

1 Calhoun, Works, VI. 160. ^ /^/^.^ 177 



84 



FORMULAS. 



[Ch. V. 



Calhoun on 
inference. 



Powers of 
the Supreme 
Court. 



investigation and decision. The strong influence of 
public opinion outside the State, the influence of pub- 
lic men aspiring to national office, the pressure of 
adverse local feeling, would render the right free from 
danger. And if the right were known to exist, there 
would be less likelihood of an occasion for its exercise: 
moderation would characterize the general government 
in employing doubtful powers. 

It constitutes no valid objection to the right that it 
rests on mere inference from the Constitution. ^ It 
rests on inference, but inference so clear " that no 
express provision could render it more certain. The 
Constitution professes to enumerate the powers assigned 
to the general government; the powers of the States 
are reserved in general terms. It may constitute a 
presumption against the former that a power claimed is 
not enumerated, but that a power claimed by the latter 
is omitted, raises not the slightest presumption against 
its existence. . . . Like all other reserved rights, it is 
not to be inferred from the simple fact that it is not 
delegated, as is clearly the case in this instance. "^ 
To concede to the Judiciary the right to determine the 
line between reserved and delegated powers would be 
to confide the right to the majority, whose creature the 
Judiciary is. The discretion of the majority, or of 
the general government representing the majority, and 
not the Constitution, would become the measure of 
powers. The powers of the Supreme Court are judicial, 
and not political. Of the powers that have been dele- 
gated, that Court may, when occasion arises, say which 
belong to this department of the general government, 
and which to that ; but it cannot go beyond this, and say 
what powers are reserved and what are delegated.^ 

If the State, acting upon its clear right to protect its 



1 lVoris,Vl.4S^4^' 



2 /did., 69. 



« /did., 162. 



1832.] THE CAROLINA DOCTRINE. 85 

citizens, declare any act null and void, it could legally Calhoun's 
and peaceably enforce its declaration, while it would ^Tasure. 
be impossible for the general government to take any 
legal step to carry its act into execution. Resort to 
the courts of the State would be useless unless jury 
trials could be avoided. Appeal to the Supreme Court 
would avail nothing. A copy of the record is requisite 
to review the judgment of a state court, and the State 
could devise means for withholding the copy. But if 
obtained, it would avail nothing against the penal 
enactment of the State. 

" Beaten before the courts, the government would be No coercion, 
compelled to abandon its unconstitutional pretensions, 
or resort to force. "^ Such resort would be folly and 
madness. There would be no law resisted, unless 
failure to render judgment for the government is resist- 
ance; no armed force to reduce; no insurrection to 
suppress; nobody against whom force could be em- 
ployed ; no one would be guilty of treason or any crime 
under the Constitution. ** There are only two methods 
of coercion resorted to by water, — blockade and aboli- 
tion of ports of entry." The former presupposes a 
state of war, and would not be respected unless war in 
due form were declared. The latter directly violates 
the constitutional provision against giving preference to 
the ports of one State over those of another. The con- 
flict, in short, must be constitutional, — amoral contest, 
not a contest of brute force. 

1 Calhoun, IVorks, VI. 163. 



CHAPTER VI. 

PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION SENTIMENT. 
1828-1832. 

"Exposition" WiTH the adoption by the South Carolina Legisla- 
circulated. ^^^^^ j^^ December, 1828, of the " Exposition," reported 
•\ by the committee of seven, the struggle in the State 

' between the Union men and the nuUifiers began in 

earnest. The " Exposition " was printed and appeared 
in pamphlet form early in 1829. The Legislature took 
no further step at this session ; but the pamphlet was 
scattered throughout the State by the nullifiers, furnish- 
ing, of course, topics for endless discussions in private 
and in public meetings. The nullification element gained 
ground steadily through 1829, and thereafter more rap- 
idly; by 1830 it had almost secured the ascendency. 
National The sounds of the struggle that had begun were 

heard beyond the borders of the State. Some expres- 
sions that bore with them no love for the Union had 
been carried to the ears of the statesmen at Washing- 
ton; and one Senator, not the least in ability and cour- 
age, thought it time to direct public attention to the 
quarter whence they came, and to do what in him lay 
to strengthen the defences of the Union. It has been 
customary to state that the great nullification debate 
of 1830 came on in the Senate by accident; but per- 
haps deeper investigation may show that the issue was 
sought by Webster, and that due preparation was made. 
On the 29th of December, 1829, Senator Foot, of 
Connecticut, offered in the Senate a very harmless 



interest. 



1829-30.] FOOT RESOLUTION OF 1830. 8/ 

looking resolution relating to the sale of public lands.^ Foot's 
Senator Benton detected in this resolution a design to ^^^olution. 
check immigration to the West, ** an old and favorite 
policy with some politicians." ^ The Senator from 
Connecticut might shake his head, but he could not 
shake the conviction out of Benton's mind that a check 
to Western immigration was intended. Benton could 
trace through forty-four years measures to check immi- 
gration. "It was time to arrest them, ... to face about; 
and to fight a decisive battle in behalf of the West. . . . 
The young West had been saved from an attempt to 
strangle it in the cradle, forty years ago, by Virginia 
and the South." He would ask the Senate to wait till 
the Virginia Senators, then absent, returned, so that their 
assistance might once more be had. The Senate waited. 

The resolution actually came up for discussion on Benton and 
Wednesday, January 13, 1830, on which day an inter- ^^y^^- 
esting debate took place. On Monday, the i8th, the 
discussion was resumed, and Benton proceeded to make 
a set speech. He again denounced the East for hos- 
tility to the West, and made the specific charge that 
the East was anxious to depress the southern interest, 
and to prevent it from predominating there ; the West 
might be too weak to defend herself, but she knew 
where to look for help. On the following day, January 
19, Hayne for the first time joined in the discussion.^ 
Dismissing with a few words the propriety of instituting 
the proposed inquiry, he passed to the more important 

1 " Resolved, that the Committee on Public Lands be instructed 
to inquire into the expediency of limiting for a certain period the 
sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been 
offered for sale and are subject to entry at the minimum price. 
And, also, whether the office of Surveyor General may not be abol- 
ished without detriment to the public interest." — Congressional 
Debates^ 21 Cong., i sess., 3 (1829-30). 

2 Ibid., 4-24, 8 ii)ia_^ 31-35. 



attack. 



88 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VL 

question, " the policy which ought to be pursued in re- 
lation to the public lands." He distrusted the purpose 
of creating a great national treasury. It would be a 
fund for corruption, destructive to the purity and fatal 
to the duration of our institutions; "It would be 
equally fatal to the sovereignty and independence of 
the States." He was one of those who believed that 
the very life of our system was the independence of the 
States, and that there was " no evil more to be depre- 
cated than the consolidation of this government." This 
was the sentence that gave offence. 
Webster's Next day, January 20, Webster stood up, and, point- 

edly turning entirely aside from Benton's direct and 
vigorous attack on the East, began his first speech in- 
cited by Hayne. The South Carolinian had been very 
moderate in his remarks. In his sentiments there was 
little to surprise Webster greatly; and the only ap- 
parent reason for not confining his observations to the 
sectional issue raised by Benton was the design to strike 
a blow over Hayne's head at the agitators in South 
Carolina. " I know that there are some persons in the 
part of the country from which the honorable member 
comes who habitually speak of the Union in terms of 
indifference, or even of disparagement. . . . They sig- 
nificantly declare that it is time to calculate the value 
of the Union; and their aim seems to be to enumerate 
and to magnify all the evils, real or imaginary, which 
the government under the Union produces. The ten- 
dency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to 
bring the Union into discussion as a mere question of 
temporary expediency ; nothing more than a mere 
question of profit and loss." Webster may have wished 
merely to draw Hayne out, and to learn whether he 
shared such sentiments. " The honorable member is 
not, I trust, and can never be, one of these." ^ 

^ Congressional Debates y 21 Cong., i sess., 35-41 (1829-30). 



1S30.] WEBSTER'S PREPARATION. 89 

By such shrewd remarks Webster accomplished a "Great Re- 
double object: he dealt a blow at the malcontents in f}\ P''^'"^'^" 
South Carolina, and at the same time forced Hayne to 
commit himself. On Webster, therefore, rests the re- 
sponsibility for precipitating the controversy at that 
time in the Senate ; he knew what he meant to say, and 
he desired a fit opportunity to say it. Much has been 
written about Webster's second speech, the familiar 
" Reply to Hayne"; the conventional statement is that 
the general line of argument had long been familiar to 
him, and that he had only to clothe his thoughts in 
words. But the speech contains evidence that he had 
made a recent careful and detailed examination of the 
nullification doctrine. Doubtless his long experience in 
Congress and at the bar had familiarized him with all 
general questions relating to the formation and nature 
of the Union ; but whence did he come by his evident 
familiarity with the nullification doctrine in its minutest 
details? He certainly did not hear it in Hayne's second Against 
speech, to which his great reply is supposed to have °""* 

been made ; Hayne had not attempted an elaboration 
of the doctrine, but had limited himself to stating it 
and supporting it with quotations from the Virginia and 
Kentucky Resolutions, and from Madison and JefTerson. 
Only in the last paragraph did Hayne stop quoting 
authorities, and emphasize the intolerable condition 
that would result from the acceptance of the principle 
that the federal government should be the final arbiter. 
Webster's reply was really not directed against Hayne, 
but against Calhoun, or rather against the ideas ex- 
pressed in the latter's " Exposition " of 1828. That 
document had been laid before Congress, and, as already 
stated, had been spread abroad. Webster referred spe- 
cifically to this South Carolina doctrine of 1828, and his 
argument follows the lines of its development. 

Whatever may have been Webster's original plan, 



90 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VI. 

Hayne he certainly succeeded in drawing out Hayne, who was 

aroused. eager to defend his friends and his State. ^ On Thurs- 

day, January 21, 1830, the subject was resumed, and a 
request was made for postponement till Monday, so 
that Webster could be present. Hayne saw Webster 
in his seat and hoped the debate would proceed at once, 
so that he might reply to certain observations in Web- 
ster's speech of the 19th. " He would not deny that 
some things had fallen from that gentleman which 
rankled here [touching his breast] from which he would 
desire at once to relieve himself The gentleman had 
discharged his fire in the face of the Senate. He hoped 
he would now afford him an opportunity of returning 
it." Webster was not less dramatic, as, with folded 
arms, he replied : " I am ready to receive it. Let the 
discussion proceed." Benton rose and spoke for an 
hour, and then gave way to Hayne, who occupied the 
time till adjournment. 
Hayne's By Monday, the 25th, the day on which the discus- 

sion was resumed, the news had spread that a great 
struggle was in progress in the Senate, and crowds 
had gathered to witness it. Both Webster and Hayne 
stood high in the estimation of the public. Both were 
in their prime. They had few characteristics in com- 
mon, except great ability and lofty character. Hayne ^ 

1 Congressioual Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 41-43 (1829-30). 

^ Hayne was born in St. Paul's Parish, South Carolina, Nov. 
10, 1791- He studied law under Langdon Cheves ; was elected to 
the Legislature when he was only twenty-three ; and at twenty-five 
was elevated to the Speakership. After serving for some time as 
Attorney General, he was sent, in 1822, to the United States 
Senate to succeed Senator William Smith. He was the young- 
est man who had ever represented his State there ; in fact, he was 
barely qualified in point of age. He succeeded James Hamilton, 
Jr., as Governor in 1832 ; became Intendant of Charleston in 1835, 
and President of the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad 
Company in 1836 ; and died in Asheville, N. C, of fever contracted 



qualities. 



1830.] HAYNE'S GREAT EFFORT. 91 

was high-minded, courteous, frank, and sincere; his 
oratory was impassioned and persuasive, his voice clear 
and distinct. As McDuffie said of him, he nearly pro- 
duced a disposition to be convinced before he began 
his argument. In his greatest efforts, however, there 
was always more rhetoric than close logical argument. 
He could move his audience deeply, but the impres- 
sion was not likely to be permanent. The best speech iiayne and 
of his life was probably that made on this day ; but it "^^^'^^ter. 
falls far below that of his rival in expression, in con- 
struction, and in sweep of sentiment. It was happy 
and eloquent, but lacked the essentials of greatness. 
Webster, if not so graceful as Hayne, and not quite so 
likely to win good will at sight, was certainly a more 
striking figure, with his abundant black hair, his superb 
brow, and his dark, piercing, deep-set eyes. He could 
command attention and admiration at once, whether he 
won affection or not. It would be a waste of time to 
attempt a description of his oratory; too many others 
have failed to do it justice. 

Hayne ^ began by protesting that he had not ex- Hayne's 
pected to meet such arguments as had been urged by °P^'""S- 
the Senator from Massachusetts; he had questioned 
no man's opinions, impeached no man's motives, and 
had charged no party. State, or section with hostility 
to any other. The Senator from Massachusetts, after 
deliberating a whole night, had come into the chamber 
to vindicate New England, and, instead of making up 
his issue with the Senator from Missouri, " selects me 
as his adversary, and pours out all the vials of his 

while on his way there to attend a convention of his company. 
See McDuffie's Eulogy on Hayne, 1840, Pamphlet in Harvard Col- 
lege Library (Library No. 7392.65); O'Neall, Bench and Bar of 
South Carolina^ IL 11-33. 

1 For the speech, see Congressio7ial Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 
43-50(1829-30). 



92 



PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 



[Ch. VL 



Hayne's 
authorities. 



Public 
interest. 



mighty wrath on my devoted head. Nor is he will- 
ing to stop there. He goes on to assail the institu- 
tions and policy of the South, and calls in question 
the principles and conduct of the state which I have 
the honor to represent." With even pace, with smooth, 
well rounded sentences, Hayne touched upon the various 
topics that had been suggested. For the first time he 
turned his attention to the sectional issue, — it would 
have been better for his reputation if he had not done 
so. "By way of defending South Carolina from what he 
thinks an attack upon her, he first quotes the example 
of Massachusetts, and then denounces that example in 
good set terms." ^ From this point Hayne labored 
rather hard till he entered upon the defence of those 
principles of his friends and of his State to which Web- 
ster had referred. Webster had not condescended to 
examine the question, but had simply thrown the weight 
of his great authority into the scale against it. Hayne 
did not attempt any formal or elaborate statement of 
the doctrine of nullification, but merely threw into the 
opposite scale the authorities upon which his State 
relied, — the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Jef- 
ferson, and Madison. Hayne closed at four o'clock; 
Webster rose to reply, but yielded to a motion to 
adjourn. 

On Tuesday and Wednesday, January 26 and 27, 
Webster replied. The Senate Chamber was crowded ; 
the Houseof Representatives was nearly deserted ; move- 
ment on the floor of the Senate was almost impossible ; 
in the rear of the Vice President's chair the pressure 
was especially great, due in no small degree to the 
presence there of Dixon H. Lewis, the weighty Con- 
gressman from Alabama.^ The excitement ran high ; 



^ Webster: Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 72(1829-30). 
2 He is said to have weighed 500 pounds. 



1830.] WEBSTER'S REPLY TO HAYNE. 93 

feeling was intense ; but Webster's first sentence put the 
audience at ease. 

Webster's great speech is too familiar to call for ex- Webster's 
tended notice; his magnificent exordium, his parrying of ^^P^' 
Hayne's thrusts are well known. For our purposes what 
is important is his discussion of the doctrine of nullifica- 
tion. Expressing great respect for the constitutional 
opinions of Madison, he contended that a wrong con- 
struction had been put upon them by South Carolina. 
He admitted the right of revolution, but would not con- 
cede that under the Constitution, and in conformity with 
it, there was any mode by which a State government, 
as a member of the Union, could interfere and stop the 
progress of the general government " by force of her 
own laws under any circumstances whatever." This 
led him to inquire into the origin of the government. 
Was it the creature of the State Legislatures or of the 
people? "It is, sir, the people's Constitution, the peo- "The People's 
pie's government ; made for the people, made by the Constitution." 
people, and answerable to the people.^ . . . We are all 
agents of the same supreme power, the people. The 
general government and the State governments derive 
their authority from the same source. Neither can, in 
relation to the other, be called primary, though one 
is definite and restricted, and the other general and 
residuary." 

In cases of conflict, who will be the arbiter? "If The arbiter, 
there be no power to settle such questions independent 
of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of 
sand?" Would not the country be thrown back again 
precisely upon the old Confederation? "It is too plain 
to be argued : four and twenty interpreters of consti- 
tutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, 
and none with authority to bind anybody else, and 

* This clause probably suggested Lincoln's famous sentence in 
his Gettysburg address. 



94 



PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 



[Cir. VL 



Provisions 
in the Con- 
stitution. 



Hayne's 
rejoinder. 



this constitutional law to be the only bond of union." 
Would the Senator admit that the New England States 
would have been justified in interfering to break up the 
Embargo? Could they have allowed it? Methods of 
relief had been provided, as Webster pointed out, in the 
Judiciary, in frequent elections, and in the power of 
amendment. " If, sir, the people in these respects had 
done otherwise than they have done, their Constitution 
could neither have been preserved, nor would it have 
been worth preserving." It might be admitted that the 
right of judging should not have been lodged with 
the general government, but the question was whether 
the right had not been so lodged. If there were fears, 
there were also hopes. The people had preserved their 
Constitution for forty years, had " seen their happi- 
ness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and 
strengthen with its strength. . . . Overthrown by direct 
assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, nullified, it 
will not be, if we, and those who shall succeed us 
here as agents and representatives of the people, shall 
conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great 
branches of our public trust, faithfully to preserve and 
wisely to administer it."-^ 

When Webster sat down, Ilayne^ began his second 
rejoinder. It is not necessary for us to follow him over 
the familiar ground ; he added nothing to Calhoun's 
"Exposition" of 1828, except an element of confusion.^ 

1 For the speech, see Congressional Debates^ 21 Cong., i sess., 
58-80 (1829-30). 

2 Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., 82 et seq. (1829-30). 

3 Ibid., 92, 93. In restating his view of the origin of the gov- 
ernment, Hayne used the following language : " Here, then, is a 
case of compact between sovereigns, and the question arises, 
What is the remedy for a clear violation of its express terms by 
one of the parties ? And here the plain, obvious dictate of com- 
mon sense is in strict conformity with the understanding of man- 
kind, and the practice of nations in all analogous cases : ' that, 



1830.] EFFECT OF THE DEBATE. 95 

Webster closed the day's debate in a third speech, re- Webster's 
markable for its compactness, exposing the weak places ^""^"^^'■y- 
in Hayne's rejoinder, and giving a masterly summary of 
his own views. The debate dragged on for about a 
month, Benson, Clayton, Woodbury, Grundy, Living- 
ston, Smith, and others joining in ; but, so far as the 
record shows, the resolution out of which the discussion 
had grown was never brought to vote. 

The speeches of both Hayne and Webster were well 
received, especially by their respective sympathizers. 
In South Carolina, Hayne's rejoinder was distributed as 
" a complete answer." A contemporary,^ indulging his Effect of 
imagination perhaps too freely, tells us that after the *^^ debate, 
delivery of Hayne's speech a Southerner could be 
detected by his buoyant, joyous expression and con- 
fident air ; the Yankee, by his timid, anxious eye and 
depressed bearing. Benton could scarcely find words to 
express his praises. " Much as he [Hayne] had done 
before to establish his reputation as an orator, a states- 
man, a patriot, and a gallant son of the South, the efforts 
of these days eclipse and surpass the whole. They will 
be an era in his senatorial career which his friends and 
his country will remark and remember, and look back 
upon with pride and exultation." ^ The reports of 

where a resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to 
the compact must themselves be the rightful judges whether the 
bargain has been pursued or violated.' (Madison's Report, p. 20.) 
When it is insisted by the gentleman that one of the parties (the 
Federal Government) 'has the power of deciding ultimately and 
conclusively upon the extent of its own authority,' I ask for the grant 
of such power. ... If it is to be inferred from the nature of the 
compact, I aver that not a single argument can be urged in favor 
of the Federal Government, which would not apply with at least 
equal force in favor of a state." Ibid., 86. See Webster's remarks 
on this position, Ibid., 92. 

^ Charles W. March, Reminiscences of Congress, 118 et seq. 

2 Congressional Debates, 21 Cong., i sess., n8 (1829-30). 



96 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch, VI. 

Webster's speech were read with eagerness. He had 
done for the men of the national party what Calhoun 
had done in his " Exposition " for the men of the State 
Rights party ; he had formulated their views in a mas- 
terly argument, and through his boldness had given them 
renewed courage and confidence. We are told that the 
*' New England men walked down the streets that day 
with a firmer, bolder air. You would have sworn they 
were some inches taller. They devoured the way in 
their stride. Their elation knew no limits. Every 
one was ready to exclaim, ' Thank God, I too am a 
Yankee l"'i 
Was Webster It has been said that the ground which Webster took 
ground? ^^ ^^'^ debate was new, while that of Hayne was old ; 

that Webster's position was one toward which the 
greater part of the nation was steadily advancing, while 
Hayne's was one upon which the South was presently 
to stand quite alone; that the political and economic 
condition of the North had advanced, and with it pub- 
lic opinion, while politically and economically the South 
had remained the same, and opinion had also remained 
stationary.^ This judgment hardly represents the situa- 
tion correctly. The North had undoubtedly advanced, 
Had the but the South, or rather South Carolina, had not stood 

stm .? ^ °° s^*^^ 5 s^^ ^^^ retrograded. She had kept up with the 
progressive forces till 1820, had in fact kept in the very 
front rank; but about that time she called a halt, and 
finally obstructed the way. The principles on which 
Hayne based his argument in 1830 were old in one 
sense; in fact, they had died of old age in 1789, and 
were buried under the Constitution. Hayne now un- 
earthed the mummy, and held it up to frighten the 
nation. 

The issue had thus been joined and practically fought 

^ Charles W. March, Reminiscences of Congress, 149. 
^ Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion^ 47. 



1830.] 



JACKSON'S ATTITUDE. 



97 



out in the legislative body. But it was not the legisla- 
tive so much as the executive which just at that time 
disturbed the nullifiers. The question was, What would 
Jackson do? Would he sympathize with them or not? 
The nullifiers were not long in finding out how little 
ground there was for their confident expectations. 
Jefferson's birthday was to be celebrated on the 15th 
of April, 1830; and for that occasion a dinner was 
arranged by the State Rights element, to which Jack- 
son was invited. If the object of the meeting was to 
draw Jackson out, it did not fail. Toasts were called for 
and Jackson promptly responded with: "The Federal 
Union ; — it must be preserved." Calhoun had his wits 
about him ; when called upon, he gave with feeling the 
appropriate sentiment: "The Union, — next to our lib- 
erty most dear. May we all remember that it can only 
be preserved by respecting the rights of the states and 
distributing equally the benefit and the burthen of the 
Union." This incident became known to the leaders 
of both elements in South Carolina, but the State 
Rights leaders insisted on taking Jackson's sentiment 
in a " Pickwickian sense." With unaccountable obtuse- 
ness, they insisted that Jackson meant that the Union 
was to be preserved along the lines that Calhoun 
had indicated in his sentiment.^ In fact, during the 
agitation in the summer of 1830, intended to arouse the 
sentiment of the State in favor of calling a State Con- 
vention, the nullifiers went so far as to represent that 
the Union party was acting contrary to the President's 
wishes, '2 and this representation was the more readily 
accepted because of the opinion that prevailed as to 
the President's views in general. 

^ See Proceedings of the Celebration of the Fourth of fuly^ 
183T, at Charleston^ S. C, by the State Rights and Free Trade 
Party, p. 27, in Harvard College Library (Library No. 12354.58). 

^ C. J. Stilld, Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett, 1888, p. 57. 

7 



Jackson 
sounded 



" It must be 
preserved." 



98 



PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 



[Ch. VL 



Movement 
to call a 
convention. 



Union party 
celebration. 



The movement to call a convention to nullify the 
tariff laws showed much strength in the election of 
1830, and was held in check only with great difficulty.^ 
The election of members to the Legislature turned 
upon that issue, and, when the Legislature assembled, 
reports favoring a convention were presented in both 
Houses. The cause of the general government was 
ably advocated by Judge Daniel E. Huger, Jr., P. 
Richardson, William M. Willie, T. R. English, and 
others.^ Every point was discussed with moderation, 
— the attitude of the President, the operation of the 
tariff, the nature of the government, and the questions 
of secession and nullification. It was declared that a 
State Convention could not nullify or arrest the execu- 
tion of an act of Congress, under either the law of 
nations or the Constitution of the United States, with- 
out running the risk of a national or a civil war of 
extermination. The opposition was successful in pre- 
venting the calling of a convention, and the Legislature 
contented itself with a set of resolutions compiled 
from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. 

After the adjournment of the Legislature, there were 
no developments of any importance till the summer 
of 183 1. Then occurred an incident which, at last, 
opened the eyes of the nullifiers to the real attitude 
of the President. As it happened, each party had 
determined to take advantage of the Fourth of July 
to arouse the enthusiasm of its adherents and to 
attach those who wavered. Monster celebrations were 
planned in Charleston; each party was bent on making 
the other appear as insignificant as possible. The 
Union party probably desired, in addition, to convince 
the nullifiers once for all that President Jackson would 



^ Congressional Debates^ 21 Cong., 2 sess., 611 (1830-31). 
' Debate in Soitth Carolina Legislature^ December, 1830. Docu- 
ment in Kennedy Library, Spartanburg, S. C 



1830-31.] UNION PARTY IN 1831. 99 

not countenance any schemes tending to impair the 
dignity and authority of the general government; and 
they made elaborate arrangements accordingly.^ 

The morning of the Fourth was ushered in by the 
firing of cannon, the ringing of bells, and the parade of 
the militia; and at ten o'clock the party began to assem- 
ble between Meeting Street and the Bay. From this 
point, the procession, several thousand strong, gay 
with banners and brass bands, moved to the First 
Presbyterian Church, at the corner of Meeting and 
Trade Streets, where the first ceremonies of the day 
were to be held. " The whole formed a sublime and 
imposing spectacle, the moral grandeur of which it "Imposing 
would be difficult to give an adequate idea of in 
words. It was the spontaneous movement of a vast 
multitude, assembled in the presence of their God, to 
sacrifice at the altars of their country, and to vow 
before Him their unalterable determination to defend 
her institutions and her laws against the attacks of 
all her enemies, whether they exist in her own bosom, 
or come against her from abroad." At the church 
original odes were sung ; Washington's Farewell Address 
was read by Daniel E. Huger, and was received " with 
strong and repeated emotions, particularly those parts 
of the Address which are admonitory as to the causes 
that may threaten disunion and the attempts that would 
be made to effect it" ; and an oration was delivered by 
William Drayton. At the close of the ceremonies at 
the church, the party adjourned to reassemble in the 
afternoon for the dinner and the speaking. 

For the dinner and the speaking, a building covering Union party 
a space of forty-five feet in width by one hundred and ^'^"^'■• 
fifty feet in length had been erected at the corner of 
Meeting and George Streets. "The lot and the build- 
ing in which the party dined were decorated with a 

^ Capers, Life and Times of Memmtnger, 37-105. 



decorations. 



lOO PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VL 

taste at once showy and becoming. Festoons of ever- 
greens encircled the pillars, which, though we cannot 
exactly consider or designate them ' Corinthian col- 
umns,' were nevertheless very neat and substantial. 
Union The hickory, entwined with the palmetto and the pine, 

were conspicuous as appropriate emblems in illustrat- 
ing the pride and strength of our country; and from 
the archway, one of which being appropriated to each 
individual, were suspended shields bearing the names 
of Moultrie, Warren, Lafayette, Manning, Sumpter, 
Hampton, Lincoln, . . . and many others who had dis- 
tinguished themselves in the cause of liberty in the 
fields and on the shores of Carolina. Transparencies 
of Washington, Hancock, Franklin, and others, encir- 
cled with boughs and luxuriant foliage, hung at the 
upper end of the vast hall. In front of the building 
the eye was attracted to the novel appearance in our 
streets of a palmetto and a hickory tree, transplanted 
in full bloom from the soil in which they originally 
grew, and waving in that of their adoption as freshly 
as they ever did before. The front of the building was 
decorated with two full-rigged frigates, manned and 
armed, mounting each fifty-two guns, and one rakish- 
looking and elegant tender, — all perfect models of 
naval architecture. These were each surmounted by 
a broad, transparent archway, over the centre of which 
appeared illuminated the words, ' Don't give up the 
Ship ! ' Three other transparencies, allegorical and 
emblematical, directly beneath the archway, completed 
the decorations in front." ^ The wines were excellent, 
and the heat was extreme. 

After the dinner came the intellectual repast, the 
toasts,^ — nearly two hundred in number altogether, — 

^ Capers, Life and Times of Memmins;er, 37-44. 

2 Two of the res:ular toasts deserve notice : — 

" 18. State Sovereignty : If one State has the right to change 



letter. 



1831.] UNION CELEBRATION IN 1831. lOI 

the speeches, and the letters. The principal speeches Union 
were made by Thomas R. Mitchell, Hugh S. Legare, ^P^^^^^s. 
James L. Petigru, and Daniel E. Huger. Those of Le- 
gare and Petigru especially deserve attention. Issue was 
joined with the nullifiers on every point : it was main- 
tained with truth that the past history of the State con- 
demned their proceedings ; that the injurious effect of 
the tariff had been exaggerated ; ^ that there was no 
authority for the doctrine of nuUification in the history 
of the Union or in the law of nations ; and that, if the 
doctrine were pushed to its logical result, civil war 
would ensue. Letters were read from many prominent 
men in the State ; but they were overshadowed by the 
letter ^ which the committee had received from Presi- Jackson's 
dent Jackson in reply to an invitation to be present. 
This was their big gun, which was expected to carry 
consternation into the camp of the State Rights and 
Free Trade party. The committee had reminded the 
President of the " portentous omens which threatened 
the State with civil war," and informed him that they 
conceived it of infinite importance to expose the fatal 
errors of opinion with which the youth were growing 
up ; and further that it was their aim to " revive in its 

the government, the others have a right to prevent it. (Ye Mortals 
whom fancy and troubles perplex)." 

" 22. ' Nullification,' ' Secession,' and ' Putting the State on its 
Sovereignty': Revolution in disguise. (Black Joe).'' Capers, 
Life and Times of Afeniminger, 44. 

1 Petigru went so far as to say : "That the tariff of protecting 
duties ought never to have been passed ; that it is contrary to the 
spirit of amity and concession in which the Constitution was con- 
ceived, and in which the government ought to be executed, I freely 
admit; that it is injurious to the South, I firmly beheve; but that 
it is unconstitutional, I wholly deny ; and that it is ruinous in its 
operations, is no more than a rhetorical flourish." Capers, 
Ibid., 61. 

2 Ibid, 46-48. 



I02 PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. [Ch. VL 

full force the benign spirit of Union." Jackson declined 
the invitation, but sent the letter, which was probably 
all the committee hoped for. " Every enlightened citi- 
zen," the President wrote, " must know that a separa- 
tion, could it be effected, would begin with civil discord 
and end in colonial dependence on a foreign power, an 
obliteration from the list of nations. But he should 
also see that high and sacred duties, which must and 
will at all hazards be performed, present an insurmount- 
able barrier to the success of any plan of disorganiza- 
tion, by whatever patriotic name it maybe decorated, or 
whatever high feeling may be arrayed for its support." 
The letter was read in four different quarters of the 
assemblage, and was received with enthusiastic cheers. 
State Rights Rumors of this letter had reached the State Rights 
Trade"^^^ and Free Trade party, which was celebrating not far 

celebration. off; but apparently it failed to produce the effect in- 
tended. The preparations of this rival body had been, 
if anything, rather more elaborate than those of the 
Union party. The preliminary ceremonies of the 
morning closed with the presentation of a banner by 
the ladies of Charleston, with the march of a proces- 
sion including the societies of the Cincinnati, of the 
Revolution, and of '^6, and a body of seamen bear- 
ing banners inscribed with stirring sentiments. Then 
came an oration by Robert Y. Hayne at the Circular 
Church, " which for cogency of reasoning, purity and 
elevation of sentiment, and eloquence and impressive- 
ness of delivery, has certainly never been exceeded in 
this or perhaps in any other city of the Union." At 
three o'clock the crowd reassembled for the march to 
the pavilion. This booth, erected at the corner of 
Meeting Street and South Bay, in the form of a penta- 
gon, and arranged to accommodate over twelve hundred 
people, was decorated in very much the same manner 
as the building of the opposing party. Many of the 



i83t.] STATE RIGHTS CELEBRATION. 103 

leading nulHfiers of the State were present, Governor state Rights 

James Hamilton, Jr., Senator Hayne, Robert J. Turn- speeches. 

bull, Henry L. Pinckney, Judge Colcock, and others. 

Toasts, regular and irregular, were proposed without 

number; and long speeches were made by Hamilton, 

Hayne, Turnbull, and Pinckney. The audience was 

assured that the nullification remedy would work as 

smoothly as could be desired ; that no bloodshed should 

follow. Hamilton and Turnbull assured their hearers 

that the President could not mean what the plain words 

of his 15th of April sentiment seemed to indicate; for, 

coercion could not be employed. Hamilton referred 

to the rumor that there was then a letter in the city from 

the President expounding his meaning, but he dismissed 

the subject with a reminder that old VVaxsaw still stood 

where Jackson left it, and that the old stock of ''j6 had 

not given out.^ 

Of course before the next day the nuUiflers knew that The Legis- 
there was good foundation for the rumor which had jackson. 
reached them. The leaders bided their time; they 
waited for the assembling of the Legislature, and then 
their wrath broke loose. The Legislature fumed and 
raved.^ Was it to be schooled and rated by the Presi- 
dent of the United States? Was it to legislate under 
the sword of the Commander in Chief? " The Execu- 
tive of a most limited government, the agent of an 
agency, but a part of a creature of the States, under- 
takes to prescribe the line of conduct to a free and 
sovereign State under denunciation of pains and pen- 
alties ! It cannot but be esteemed a signal instance of 
forbearance calmly to inquire into this assumed power 
of the President over the State." After cooling down a 
little, the committee reporting proceeded to declare that 

1 Proceedings of the Celebration of the Fourth of Jtdy, 1831, 
at Charleston^ S. C, fy the State Rights and Free Trade Party. 

2 South Carolijta Laws (1831), Resolutions^ p. 59. 



I04 



PROGRESS OF NULLIFICATION. 



[Ch. VI. 



Secession 
justified. 



State Rights 
and Free 
Trade 
convention. 



each State was sovereign, and might withdraw from the 
Union whenever it saw fit, and that such action would 
be neither treason nor insurrection ; that whether it 
could be a cause of war on the part of the general gov- 
ernment might be questionable ; that the notion was 
monstrous that the President himself could declare war. 
The committee further announced that, if the State 
should declare any enactment of the general govern- 
ment void, her judgment would be paramount, and any 
attempt to enforce such enactment would be an exercise 
of the law of tyrants, the exertion of brute force. If 
such a case should occur, the State would throw her- 
self on Providence, and, if her destiny was to be sla- 
very, she would not be mocked by the forms of a free 
government. 

A convention had been held in Columbia in 1831, 
just before Congress assembled, and when there was 
hope that Congress would take favorable action on the 
tariff; but months had passed, and the indications were 
far from satisfactory. Hence the next step of the nul- 
lifiers was to hold a great convention of delegates from 
all the State Rights and Free Trade associations in the 
State, " to devise the best means of maintaining the 
reserved sovereignty of the States and of recovering for 
the country the lost but inestimable blessings of Free 
Trade, ... to consider and measure the best means of 
diffusing among our people a just knowledge of their 
rights, ... of cherishing and invigorating an enlight- 
ened public sentiment, ... of offering up again our 
pledges that, if the public tranquillity is disturbed, it 
shall not be of our seeking; and that our only object, 
with a preservation of the Union of these States, is to 
maintain those very rights and privileges which union 
was designed to render perpetual." ^ 

1 The State Rights and Free Trade Convention^ 1832. (Boston 
Public Library Pamphlet.) 



1831-32.] STATE RIGHTS CONVENTION, 1832. 105 

The convention assembled in Charleston, Wednesday, Leaders. 
February 22, 1832. Only one district, Pendleton, was 
unrepresented. One hundred and eighty delegates 
were enrolled, and Governor Hamilton was elected 
President. Many men were present who were already, 
or were soon to be, conspicuous in public life, — Isaac 
E. Holmes, C. J. Colcock, H. L. Pinckney, Waddy 
Thompson, Jr., Alexander I. Sims, A. P. Butler, Wil- 
liam C. Preston, S. H. Butler, T. D. Singleton, Robert 
Barnwell Smith (Rhett), Franklin H. Elmore, and James 
H. Hammond. A committee of thirteen was appointed 
to prepare an address, and to report at the next meet- 
ing, Saturday, the 25th. The committee reviewed the 
sufferings of the State and the remonstrances that had 
been made. They would not moot constitutional ques- 
tions; the argument was exhausted. What was to be 
done? " W/ijy, Resist?'' The State had nothing to Resistance 
do but to say on her high authority that her citizens ^ located, 
should not pay tribute, and tribute would not be paid. 
" The State looks to her sons to defend her in whatever 
form she may choose to proclaim her purpose to Re- 
sisi." They had merely paused to await the decision of 
Congress. Sanguine expectations of relief from that 
source were not entertained, and it was agreed on all 
hands that the decision soon to be made by Congress 
would be final. The convention unanimously adopted 
a set of resolutions, recommending the semiannual pub- 
lication and distribution of tracts, and particularly — 
since it was important that the people should under- 
stand the process by which their burdens might be 
removed without either secession or revolution — of 
tracts " explaining and inculcating nullification as the 
legitimate, peaceful, and rightful remedy for all oppres- 
sive and dangerous violations of the federal compact." 



CHAPTER VII. 



THE ISSUE JOINED. — 1832-1833. 



Tariff of 
1832. 



South 

Carolina 

election. 



For once the nullitiers had read the signs aright. 
Congress finished its work; the hoped for relief was 
not afforded. On the contrary, the act of July 14, 
1832, was passed, stripping the act of 1828 of some of 
its most obnoxious features, it is true, but still not 
providing for any such reductions as South Carolina 
thought dictated by justice. Hayne declared in the 
Senate that he regarded the bill as fixing the protec- 
tive system upon the country forever, without hope of 
relief; and that, if it passed, the prosperity of the 
South, so far as it depended on the general govern- 
ment, would be destroyed. The people of his State had 
been advised to wait patiently till certain conditions 
were satisfied, and then, if their demands were not 
heeded, to take decisive action. The crisis had come: 
Jackson was in power; the public debt had practically 
been extinguished; there was no longer any necessity, 
from a revenue standpoint, for high duties; and yet 
Congress, instead of lessening the burdens imposed by 
the tariff, had simply decreed that they should be per- 
manent. At least such was the view of the majority of 
the people of the State. He declared that action could 
no longer be delayed. ^ 

The elections for the State Legislature were to be 
held in the fall of the year 1832. Canvassing went on 



1 Congressional Debates. 22 Cong., i sess., 1217, 1292 (1831-32). 



1832.] CALL OF NULLIFICATION CONVENTION. 107 

during the summer, the issue being the call of a con- 
vention to nullify the tariff laws. The Union men did 
what they could to stem the tide, but their efforts were 
unavailing. Their total vote was not very much below 
that of the nullifiers, but they carried comparatively 
few districts.'' 

Governor Hamilton, seeing how the election had Convention 
resulted, called the Legislature to meet in extra ses- recommended 
sion on October 22. His message was promptly laid 
before both Houses. The Governor represented the 
act of July 14 as a measure under which three fourths 
of the revenue of the general government would be 
drawn from the Southern States. Desiring to see the 
issue made up before the next meeting of Congress, he 
recommended that the Legislature proceed immediately 
to call a convention. "As it was by an assembly of 
identical and equivalent authority that our compact was 
formed under the Constitution with the co-states, . . . 
so on no tribunal can more appropriately devolve the 
high province of declaring the extent of our obliga- 
tions under this compact." He forbore to suggest 
what remedy the convention should ordain : it should 
pass on the whole subject uninfluenced by any official 
expressions. 2 

With almost no delay, the Legislature carried out 
the Governor's recommendation. On October 26th it Call of the ' 
passed a bill for calling the convention, by a vote in conSon" 
the House of 96 to 25, and in the Senate of 31 to , 

13.3 It was enacted, that a convention of the peo- 
ple "shall be assembled at Columbia, on the third 
Monday in November next,* then and there to take ^ 

1 Unionists, about 17,000; nullifiers, about 23,000. De Bow, 
Political Annals of South Carolina, 1845, P- 39- Legar^, Writ- 
ings, I. 209. 

2 Niks Register, XLIII. 173. 

* Ibid., 152. * November 19. 



io8 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Functions 
of the Con- 
vention. 



Election of 
delegates. 



Unionists. 



into consideration the several acts of the Congress of 
the United States, imposing duties on foreign imports 
for the protection of domestic manufacturers, or for 
other unauthorized objects, to determine on the char- 
acter thereof, and to devise the means of redress, and 
further, in like manner, to take into consideration such 
acts of the said Congress, laying duties on imports, 
as may be passed in amendment of or substitution for 
the act or acts aforesaid; and also all other laws and 
acts of the government of the United States which 
shall be passed, or done for the purpose of more effectu- 
ally executing or enforcing the same. "^ It was pro- 
vided that the delegates should be elected in the same 
manner as members of the Legislature, each district 
sending as many delegates as it had Senators and Rep- 
resentatives, and the voting to take place in the same 
manner and at the same places. Unless sooner dis- 
solved by itself, the convention was to continue twelve 
months from the day of election, and was to adjourn 
from time to time if it saw fit. 

In the election which followed, the Union men did 
not exert themselves, since the real struggle had 
taken place in the fall at the election of members of 
the Legislature. Consequently, while in the Legisla- 
ture thirteen Senators and twenty-five Representatives 
were Unionists, only twenty-six Unionists in all were 
chosen to sit in the convention. They had carried 
solidly the important counties of Greenville, Spartan- 
burg, Lancaster, Chesterfield, Darlington, Kershaw, 
and Clarendon; most of their ablest leaders, such as 
Drayton and Petigru, had not secured seats, but Benja- 
min F. Perry, John Belton O'Neall, Daniel E. Huger, 
and J. S. Richardson were men of high character and of 
good ability. On the other hand, the nullifiers were 

^ South Carolina Laws (1834), Appendix, 47 ; also Niles 
Register, XLIII. 152. 



1832.] MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION. 109 

as conspicuous for ability as for numbers. Of the one 
hundred and sixty-two delegates actually in attendance, 
one hundred and thirty-six were nullifiers; and among NulHfiers. 
these were Governor James Hamilton, Jr. ; Senators 
Robert Y. Hayne and Stephen D. Miller; Chancellor 
and Ex- Senator William Harper; Congressman George 
McDuffie; future Senators Franklin H. Elmore, William 
C. Preston and Robert W. Barnwell ; and, in addition, 
Armistead Burt, D. H. Means, C. J. Colcock, and 
Robert J. Turnbull. 

The convention met on the appointed day in the Hall Action of the 
of the House of Representatives. The convention was 
in session six days, from Monday, November 19, until 
Saturday, the 24th. Governor Hamilton^ was elected 

1 It is time that an account should be given of this, the most sketch of 
active of all the nullifiers. Hamilton was an actor rather than a Hamilton, 
counsellor. He was prompt, vigorous, and firm, — a manipulator of 
parties. He was quick and fluent rather than profound, and was 
popular with the masses. He was almost as fiery as his life- 
long friend, John Randolph of Roanoke, with whom during the en- 
tire nullification controversy he kept up a constant correspondence. 
Hamilton was born in Charleston in 1786. He served several 
terms in the Legislature, and was a member of that body when the 
negro outbreak occurred in 1822. In that year he was elected to 
Congress to succeed the lamented William Lowndes. When 
Jackson was elected President, he desired to invite Hamilton to 
take a seat in his Cabinet, but indicated that certain persons had 
taken exception to Hamilton on account of his violent course on 
the tariff, hoping probably that Hamilton would show a willingness 
to tone down a little and accept the position ; but Hamilton, thank- 
ing him for the intended compliment, remarked that he was more 
highly honored by the ground on which he had been excluded. 
Hamilton served as Governor from 1830 to 1832. After the close 
of the nuUification controversy, he moved to Texas, and exerted 
himself to get her independence recognized by foreign nations. 
He was active in procuring the admission of Texas into the Union, 
and was rewarded by election to the United States Senate. But 
apparently he did not take his seat. He was drowned in a col- 
lision near the Texas coast, November 15, 1857. 



no 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Proceedings 
of the 
convention. 



Ordinance of 
nullification. 



president, and a committee of twenty-one was apjiointed 
to take into consideration the call of the Legislature, 
and to lay out the work of the convention. Very little 
was done before Thursday, when Hayne, in behalf of 
the committee, read an elaborate exposition, and Judge 
Colcock, the chairman of the committee, introduced 
the Ordinance of nullification. On Friday an address 
to the people of South Carolina was reported, and later 
an address to the people of the United States was read 
by McDufhe. Final action on these reports was post- 
poned till Saturday, when the Ordinance was adopted 
by a vote of one hundred and thirty-six to twenty six.' 
While all the proceedings of the convention were seri* 
ous and dignified, those of the last days were especially 
sober. The signing of the Ordinance was accompanied 
with unusual solemnity; the seven old members of the 
convention who had borne arms in the Revolutionary 
War were called upon to affix their signatures first ; the 
other members signed alphabetically.^ 

The Ordinance followed the precedent of the Ken- 
tucky Resolutions in declaring all acts imposing duties 
on foreign commodities, and, in particular, the acts of 
May 19, 1828, and July 14, 1832, unauthorized by the 
Constitution, "null, void, and no law, not binding upon 
this state, its officers or citizens " ; to counteract the 
power of the United States courts, it prohibited appeal 
to the Supreme Court in cases touching either the 
authority of the Ordinance, or the validity of acts of 
the Legislature enforcing it, or of the acts of Congress 
nullified; to assure the State of the allesfiance of its 



^ The Union delegates offered very little opposition to any of 
the measures ; their leaders had counselled silence. Whatever 
counteraction was necessary was to be taken by the convention of 
their party which was then in session in the city. 

2 For the proceedings of the convention, see State Papers on 
Nullification. 



1832.] ORDINANCE OF NULLIFICATION. m 

people, the Ordinance enjoined on all officers of the 
State, except members of the Legislature, and on all 
jurors, the duty of taking an oath to obey and enforce Oath. 
the Ordinance and the acts which should be passed 
to give it effect; and ordained that no authorities 
should enforce the payment of duties within the State. 
Details were left to the State government, but it was 
provided that the acts which the Legislature was 
required to pass in order to carry into execution the Time of 
purposes of the convention, and to arrest the opera- °P^^^^^°^- 
tion of the acts of Congress, should take effect from 
February i, 1833. Finally, the Ordinance expressed 
the determination of the people of South Carolina not Secession, 
to submit to force, and, in case the general government 
should undertake to exercise coercion, to hold them- 
selves absolved from all political connection with the 
people of other States, and to organize a separate ^ 

government. Before adjourning, the president was 
authorized, ** if in his opinion the public exigencies" 
should demand, to assemble the body any time be- Reassembling, 
fore November 12, 1833. Furthermore, a committee, 
consisting of William Harper, Robert Y. Hayne, Ben- 
jamin Rogers, Thomas Harrison, and John S. Maner, 
was appointed to act in case of the death or disqualifi- 
cation of the president. January 31, 1833, the day 
before the acts of the Legislature were appointed to 
go into effect, was designated as " a day of solemn fast- ^^^^ ^^y- 
ing, humiliation, and prayer. " 

When the Legislature assembled on the 27th of 
November, the message ^ of Governor Hamilton was 
promptly laid before it. Attention was directed to the 
requirements of the Ordinance which had become a 
part of the fundamental law of the State. The die 
had now been cast ; there was no longer a question for 

1 South Carolina Laws (1832). 



112 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Hamilton's 

belligerent 
message. 



Action of the 
Legislature. 



Replevin Act. 



Federal 
authorities. 



debate. The Legislature was advised to take such 
measures as would accomplish the purposes of the 
Ordinance. A revision of the militia system was 
recommended by Hamilton ; and authority was asked to 
accept the services of two thousand volunteers for the 
defence of Charleston, and of ten thousand to be organ- 
ized as a State guard. The remedy, the Governor said, 
was, or ought to be, a peaceful one, and should be such 
so far as South Carolina was concerned. Confidence 
was expressed that arbitration would be granted by a 
call of a general national convention; but still it was 
declared to be the part of wisdom to prepare for the 
worst. This was Hamilton's last communication as 
Governor. December 13, 1832, his successor, Robert 
Y. Hayne, delivered his inaugural address.^ Governor 
Hayne began his term of office by announcing his deter- 
mination to uphold the sovereignty of his State, and to 
recognize no allegiance as paramount to that which was 
due her. 

Upon the Legislature now devolved the duty of car- 
rying out "the peaceable remedy" of nullification; and 
it acted promptly upon the recommendations of Gov- 
ernor Hamilton. The first measure, the Replevin Act, 
was intended to meet the probable detention of goods 
on which the payment of duties was refused.^ By this 
act any goods detained for the non-payment of duties, or 
under pretence of securing duties, could be recovered 
with damages. 

Provision was also made for the case of refusal of the 
United States authorities to deliver the goods in ques- 
tion ; the sheriff, upon a writ conferring the authority, 
was empowered to seize the personal effects of the of- 
fender and to hold them till the goods were delivered. 
It was further provided that any person who should pay 



South Carolina Laws (1832). 



Ibid. 



1832.] NULLIFICATION STATUTES. 113 

any duty might recover the same, and, if arrested up- 
on a judgment obtained in a federal court for duties 
claimed, might avail himself of the provisions of the 
Habeas Corpus Act ; and sales of property of importers 
to secure the amount of duties were declared illegal. 
The dangerous question of appeals was to be settled Appeals, 
by a provision by which clerks were forbidden, under 
penalty, to furnish courts with copies of record; and 
heavy penalties were imposed on any one who should 
in any manner obstruct proceedings under the act. A 
third series of measures provided for military defence, 
if necessary: a Militia Act was passed;^ and the Gov- Defence. ^ 
ernor was authorized, in case an effort was made to 
coerce the State, or any forcible resistance was offered 
to the measures of the State, to call out such part 
of the militia as he should deem necessary. He was 
further empowered to purchase ten thousand stand of 
small arms, and such other munitions as circumstances 
might justify. This power conferred upon the Gover- 
nor was made applicable to cases of insurrection, inva- 
sion, imminent danger, and all cases where the laws were 
opposed by combinations too powerful for the ordinary 
civil officers. The last, and to the Union men the most 
obnoxious measure, was the Test Oath Act,^ requiring Test oath, 
every officer, civil or military, to take the oath pre- 
scribed in the act, — and in particular the judges in 
Charleston, before sitting upon any case involving the 
injunctions of the Ordinance. 

By the Union men all these proceedings were regarded 
as despotic in the last degree, as well as treasonable 
and revolutionary. The nullifiers had raved and 
ranted about the rights of the majority. The tyranny 
of an irresponsible majority was the theme on which 
they had thundered with most effect; and yet, compared 

^ South Carolina Laws (1832). 2 7,$/^, 

8 



114 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Unionist 
protests. 



Unionists 
prepare to 
resist. 



to the despotism of their own conduct, that of which they 
had complained was mildness itself. Well might one of 
the most moderate of the Unionists, Hugh S. Legare, 
write: "When I read your Ordinance, I rubbed my 
eyes to be sure that I was not in a dream. I could not 
believe it possible that such insolent tyranny was in 
the heart of any man, educated as and where I myself 
imbibed my detestation of all arbitrary power, though 
its sceptre be in my own grasp. I don't speak of it as 
a federal or as an anti-federal measure, — I refer to it 
exclusively as a measure of government in South Caro- 
lina, and I declare to you solemnly that for the first 
time during this controversy I felt the spirit of civil 
war burning within me, and that I fervently prayed 
that my friends of the Union party would, without any 
hesitation, swear that it should never be enforced but 
at the point of the bayonet." ^ The special objection to 
the Test Oath Act was, that, without trial of any kind, 
it would prevent Union men from holding office; it 
ousted those who were then in official positions, and it 
placed them under judges who were creatures of their 
opponents. 

Naturally, every effort was made to organize an effect- 
ive resistance. The Union leaders were determined 
to keep a close watch over the proceedings of the nulli- 
fiers, and to hold themselves in readiness to meet any 
emergency. They therefore issued a call for a conven- 
tion of their party to be held in Columbia while the 
nullifiers were in session. This convention did very 
little; it contented itself with passing resolutions ex- 
posing the inconsistency and injustice of the dominant 
party. The leaders kept in constant touch with Wash- 
ington, and received the advice and encouragement of 



^ Legar^, Writings, I. 208. (Letter to Isaac E. Holmes, from 
Brussels.) 



1832.] UNIONIST PREPARATIONS. I15 

the federal authorities and promise of sufficient support 
through Joel R. Poinsett, who was Jackson's confidential 
agent in the State, and through Drayton and Huger. 
Poinsett, Drayton, and Huger, as well as Jackson, were 
very anxious that the nullifiers should be put down 
without the aid of the federal government; but still 
no precaution was neglected. The Unionists began 
to organize their adherents; military companies were 
formed throughout the State; regular drills were pre- 
scribed; men were enrolled who would obey the call 
of the President; and, in March, 1833, eight or nine 
hundred are reported to have volunteered to act in 
any emergency.^ 

Nor were Jackson's preparations any less complete Jackson's 
and satisfactory. In anticipation of the action of the Pi'eparations. 
convention, the commander in Charleston Harbor, Major 
Heileman, was warned, in the latter part of October, to 
guard against attempts which the militia would probably 
make to surprise the forts. The collector at the port 
was directed to regulate his conduct as the emergency 
demanded : to place on board of every vessel arriving a 
sufficient number of officers, who should remain till the 
duties were paid and till a regular permit was granted; 
and, if the duties were not paid, to sell the cargo. The 
collector was further instructed to resist the State law; 
to remain in Charleston as long as it was safe to do so, 
and, when exposed to danger, to remove to a place of 
security within the port. An additional revenue cutter 
was placed at the disposal of the collector, and during 
the months of November and December troops from 
Fortress Monroe, and two vessels, the Experiment and 
the Natchez, were ordered to Charleston. General General Scott. 
Scott had been directed to take the chief command : 
he was ordered to strengthen the defences in the har- 

^ Proceedings of the Convention <7/'i833, pp. 72, 73. 



ii6 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Jackson's 
opinions. 



Coercion 
promised. 



bor, and to call for what reinforcements he should 
deem necessary; nothing was to be done in any direc- 
tion to irritate the inhabitants; the officers were cau- 
tioned to be courteous but firm ; and Major Heileman 
was even instructed, if the demand was made upon him, 
to turn the Citadel over to the State, and also what- 
ever arms belonged to South Carolina.^ 

Jackson's letters ^ written at this time to his confiden- 
tial correspondent, Joel R. Poinsett, are characteristic. 
He made no attempt to conceal his feelings towards 
Calhoun; he evidently thought the late Vice President 
was breaking down under the load he was carrying. 
Calhoun, he wrote, had, on a certain occasion, vented 
a little of his ire against him in the Senate, but was 
confused, and cut a sorry figure. And again, "Mr. 
Webster replied to Mr. Calhoun yesterday, and it is 
said completely demolished him. It is believed by 
more than one that Mr. C. is in a state of dementation, 
— his speech was a perfect failure; and Mr. Webster 
handled him as a child." Jackson's fighting spirit was 
aroused. To him the action of the " Nullies " was folly 
and madness; the followers were deluded; the leaders 
were wickedly laboring to destroy themselves and the 
Union; they were all demagogues. The first act of 
treason would implicate all who aided or abetted the 
execution of it. Let the first overt act be committed, 
and nullification would be demolished by striking at 
the leaders; the moment there was a hostile array, 
they would be arrested. If the marshal should be 
opposed by twelve thousand men, his posse would be 
raised to twenty-four thousand. The threats of South 
Carolina were impotent. What could she do, divided 



1 Congressional Debates^ 22 Cong , 2 sess., Appendix, 177-H 
(1832-33). 

^ Stills, Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett. 



1832.] NULLIFICATION PROCLAMATION. 1 17 

at home, against the whole Union ? He had had offers 
of volunteers from every State in the Union, and could 
march two hundred thousand men into the State in forty 
days. Let the Union men have no fears. 

The President, in his fourth annual message,^ Jackson's 
December 4, 1832, called the attention of Congress to Proclamation, 
the threatening attitude of South Carolina, but indi- 
cated that the existing laws were sufficient for all 
immediate attempts that were likely to be made. He 
promised to give notice and make suggestions if dif- 
ficulties arose. On December yi, the nullification -'^^ 
proclamation appeared, — moderate and impressive, 
dignified and yet direct, positive and yet appealing: 
free from the ingenuity of the metaphysician, the 
document expressed the sense of the nation. ^ It is a 
credit to its authors, Jackson and Livingston, both of Authors, 
whom, it may be noted, were Southerners. To South- 
ern statesmen, therefore, belongs the distinction of 
giving to the country the first great national refutation, 
embodied in legal form, of the doctrines upon which 
thirty years later the people of the South staked their 
lives and fortunes. 

Strict duty, the President solemnly proclaimed, would Doctrine, 
require of him nothing more than to execute the laws 
and preserve the peace of the Union. But the impos- 
ing aspect of the opposition, and the interest which 
the people of the United States felt in rendering a 
resort to more extreme measures unnecessary, demanded 
an indication of his views and of the course which 
he felt bound to pursue. The doctrine of the State 
veto was inherently absurd ; the constitutional history 
of the country contained sufficient evidence that it would 
have been indignantly rejected by the founders of our 

1 Statesman's Manual, II. 786, 787. 

2 Ibid., 794-807. 



ii8 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



State 
sovereignty. 



Response 

of the 

" co-States.' 



government. " I consider, then, the power to annul a 
law of the United States, assumed by one State, incom- 
patible with the existence of the Union, contradicted 
expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthor- 
ized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on 
which it was founded, and destructive of the great ob- 
ject for which it was formed." 

Having stated the general principle, the President 
passed on to consider the objections which the Ordi- 
nance had urged against the federal laws, and then to a 
discussion of the right of secession; and here he directly 
joined issue with Calhoun on the fundamental question. 
The States severally, he argued, did not retain their un- 
divided sovereignty. The most conclusive evidence of 
this was the fact that they had expressly ceded the 
right to punish treason against the United States. The 
reasons which forbade secession were obvious ; all the 
other States, in self-defence, would be compelled to 
oppose it. Then followed an appeal to the citizens of 
his native State. ^ In simple terms, Jackson warned 
them that they had been deluded by men who were 
deceived or deceivers. The evil had been exaggerated; 
their pride, their courage, and their passions had 
been appealed to. He warned them that their remedy 
could not be peaceful. The object of the leaders was 
disunion; and disunion by armed force was treason. 
Finally, an appeal was made to the people of the United 
States, in which confidence was expressed that he 
would meet with their undivided support, and that the 
integrity of the Union would be preserved. 

The President's confidence in the other States was 
not misplaced. State after State, from Maine to Mis- 
sissippi, promptly gave formal expression of their 
approval of the President's sentiments, and of their 



See Proclamation, Stafes?>ian''s Maniial, II. 804. 



1832.] RESPONSE OF THE CO-STATES. 1 19 

determination to support him in the exercise of his 
legitimate powers.^ Not one State failed emphatically 
to condemn nullification. The Northern States were 
more unreserved than the Southern ; for, as a rule, they 
not only denied the validity of the doctrine of State 
veto, but also of the doctrine of secession. The South- 
ern States, with the exception of Maryland, had nothing 
to say on the nature of the government or on the right 
of secession, but confined themselves to the question 
immediately before them. Georgia and Alabama Georgia and 
joined with South Carolina in recommending that a ^ ^™^' 
general convention should be called, which should 
settle once for all the questions that had excited dis- 
content in the various States. Georgia went so far as 
to draw up a plan for a convention, and Alabama sug- 
gested March i, 1834, as the date, and Washington as 
the place. Virginia and Alabama requested that South 
Carolina suspend her Ordinance, and that Congress 
modify the tariff. Virginia reaffirmed the principles Virginia, 
of the Resolutions of 1798 and of the Report of 1799, 
but could not regard them as sanctioning the measures 
of South Carolina. Her Legislature voted to send a 
commissioner to South Carolina to effect an accommo- 
dation if possible, — a step which displeased Jackson 
extremely, but which was again substantially followed 
by Virginia in 1861. Her determination to send a 
commissioner, he wrote, had done more harm than good, 
for it had led South Carolina to expect assistance from 
her. She should simply have denounced nullification, 
and this would have brought about a repeal of South 
Carolina's Ordinance. 

The proclamation was greeted by the South Carolina 
Legislature with a defiant spirit. To quote from John 
Quincy Adams, " It was a blister plaster. " ^ Governor 

1 State Papers on Nullification, 101-292. 
' John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VIII. 511. 



I20 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



The Procla- 
mation 
in South 
Carolina. 



Randolph's 
sympathy. 



Hayne was called upon to issue a counter proclamation, 
"warning the good people of this state against the 
attempt to seduce them from their allegiance," and on 
December 20th a long set of resolutions was adopted. 
The proclamation was declared to be an unwarranted 
interference with the affairs of the State; the Presi- 
dent had no right to promulgate his exposition of the 
Constitution with the sanction of force. The right of 
secession was reaffirmed, and the primary allegiance of 
the citizen was declared to be due to the State. The 
President had not attempted to disguise his personal 
hostility; his measures were regarded with indigna- 
tion, and force would be repelled by force. ^ 

Governor Hayne's proclamation, issued on December 
20th, was written in his usual happy and plausible 
style. The familiar doctrine was ably and elegantly 
restated. No new arguments were advanced, but a just 
criticism was made on the President's apparent deter- 
mination not to see that South Carolina had expressed 
an anxious and sincere desire to submit her grievance 
to a general convention, or to recede from her position 
if a revenue tariff should be adopted. Further, the 
imputations of the President against the motives of the 
leaders were justly resented. All citizens were ex- 
horted to be "fully prepared to sustain the dignity and 
protect the liberties of the State, if need be," with 
their "lives and fortunes. "^ 

The President's proclamation was the signal for 
some of the most ardent nullifiers to offer their services 
to the State government. A most daring but somewhat 
antiquated knight from a sister State had already 
indicated his intention to die for South Carolina. 
"If I cannot be booted and mounted for the conflict," 



1 Exeaitit'e Documents, 22 Cong., 2 sess., I., No. 45 (1832-33). 

2 Niles Register, XLIII. 308-312. 



1832-33] SOUTH CAROLINA BELLIGERENT. 12 1 

wrote John Randolph, "I will at least be borne, like 
Muley Moluc, in a litter to the field of battle and die 
in your ranks. " ^ 

Hayne had not been backward in carrying out the 
instructions of the Legislature relating to the militia, 
and had done everything in his power to put the State 
in an attitude of defence. The Citadel, which, as we 
have seen, was occupied by the federal authorities, was Measures of 
vacated at his request, in accordance with the instruc- "^"c^- 
tions of the Federal Executive. Certain claims of the 
State upon the general government, payable in arms, 
amounting in value to $41,62$, had been presented and 
satisfied even before the expiration of Governor Ham- 
ilton's term, in December, 1832. After the passage 
of the Militia Act of that year, the enrolling of volun- 
teers began, and within a few weeks as many as twenty 
thousand had presented themselves; drilling was the 
order of the day; arsenals and depots were established 
at various places in the State; and all necessary arrange- 
ments for handling troops were perfected. 

Thus every movement made by one of the parties was The critical 
met by a counter movement on the part of the other. ' ' * 

Through the latter part of December, 1832, and the 
early part of January, 1833, they stood watching each 
other. It is surprising that so few collisions occurred. 
The middle of January passed by, the first of February 
drew near, — the day appointed for the Ordinance to take 
effect ; and still there was no change in the situation. 
To all appearances a trial of strength would soon take 
place. The President had sent to Congress his Force , 

Bill message of January 16, 1832; but the president of /j 

the South Carolina Convention had made no arrange- / 
ments for calling the delegates together. 

1 M7es Register, XLIV. 383; Letter to Hamilton before the 
appearance of the Proclamation. 



122 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII 



Charleston 
meeting. 



Ordinance 
suspended. 



There was in reality very little danger. The leaders 
of the nullifiers had a surprise in store. On Monday 
evening, January 21, at a meeting of a large number 
of citizens at the Circus, in Charleston, the Ordinance 
was practically suspended. ^ Lieutenant Governor 
Charles C. Pinckney presided over the meeting; Judge 
C. J. Colcock, chairman of the committee of thirteen 
in the Convention, presented the resolutions, which 
were adopted; and Ex-Governor Hamilton, president of 
the Convention, seconded the resolutions and supported 
them in a speech of considerable length. Thus the pro- 
ceedings, though of an informal character, had full 
official countenance. Through several long sections, 
the nullifiers hurled denunciations and defiance at the 
general government, as if to dispel the idea that they 
were receding from any of their demands; and then 
they proclaimed that they had "seen with lively satis- 
faction, not only indications of a beneficial modifica- 
tion of the tariff, but the expressions of sentiments in 
both branches of Congress, as well as in other quarters, 
auspicious to the peace and harmony of the Union" 
which should be met by a corresponding disposition 
on the part of the State. Therefore, " It is hereby 
declared that it is the sense of this meeting that, pend- 
ing the process of the measures here alluded to, all 
occasion of collision between the federal and state 
authorities should be sedulously avoided on both sides 
in the hope that the painful controversy in which South 
Carolina is now engaged may be thereby satisfactorily 
adjusted, and the union of these states be established 
on a sure foundation." The next resolution pledged 
each citizen, in case expectations were disappointed, 
to sustain the Ordinance of the Convention. The right 
of secession was distinctly affirmed. President Hamil- 



1 Niles Register, XLIII. 380-382. 



1833] ORDINANCE SUSPENDED. 123 

ton, in seconding the resolution, said that it was only Secession 
proper to avoid a conflict while the tariff bill was ^^'''^^d- 
before Congress. " We owe this to our friends out of 
the State. We could pause with honor. His own con- 
duct would be guided by the tone of the resolutions 
proposed. He had himself made an importation of 
sugar. He would allow his importation to go into the 
Custom House stores and wait events. He would not 
produce an unnecessary collision; but, if our hopes of 
a satisfactory adjustment of the question were disap- Coercion, 
pointed, he knew that his fellow-citizens would go even 
to the death with him for his sugar." With regard to 
the President's call for power to coerce South Caro- 
lina, he said that, if Congress granted it, he would im- 
mediately " reassemble the convention and submit to 
them the question of secession, and none could doubt 
what their choice would be." Congress very promptly 
granted the power, but Hamilton did not submit the 
question. 

The action of this meeting was as remarkable as it Nullification 
was wise ; and, indeed, its wisdom stands out the more ^^ consent- 
when one considers its source. It was not merely the 
setting aside of an ordinary law, — that would have 
been sufnciently startling; this was practically the nul- 
lification, by general consent, of a fundamental statute 
emanating from the sovereignty of the State. The rea- 
sons assigned for the action are not quite satisfactory. 
It is true that it v/ould have been inexpedient to press 
forward into a conflict, when there were signs that ac- 
tion approximating what the State demanded, at least in 
one direction, would be taken by Congress. But such 
signs had appeared several weeks before*, why was not 
the Ordinance suspended earlier.' Partly because the 
nullifiers had not been able to convince themselves that 
the general government would stand firm. They had 
not seriously expected to come to blows; this was not 



124 ISSUE JOINED. [Ch. VII. 

down on their program; the remedy was above all 
things a peaceful one ; at least as such they had per- 
sisted in speciously representing it to the people. 
Concessions They consciously or unconsciously expected that con- 
expec e . cessions would be made by the general government. 
They had expected the support of some of the States 
and of the President, and they had not received it. If 
Jackson had not taken a determined stand, or if he had 
remained indifferent, as in the case of Georgia, this 
action of the leaders on January 21 would scarcely have 
been taken. Nor, in all probability, would South 
Carolina have yielded so hurriedly if there had been no 
indications whatever that Congress would pass a satis- 
factory tariff bill. 

In fact, for several months there had been clear and 
unmistakable indications of a reaction against the pro- 
tective policy. President Jackson, in his first three 
messages, had recommended reform, indicating the 
lines along which action should proceed.^ As early 
as March, 1832, Judge Baldwin had formulated a plan 
New tariff for settling the tariff question. It was simply to re- 
duce all duties to the uniform rate of 20 per cent. 
This plan, having the entire approval and support of 
the President, was submitted to Hayne and McDuffie. 
They showed no enthusiasm over it, and did not say 
whether they would support it or not.^ McDuffie, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, had 
only the month before introduced a bill with a long 
report, practically proposing to reduce all duties to I2| 
per cent.^ Then followed the election of 1832; and it 
was found that a majority of the candidates who were 
in favor of reform had been successful, and would take 

^ Statesman's Manual, II. 703, 704, 748-750, 763, 764. 
2 John Quincy Adams, Me/noirs, VIII. 482. 
* House Reports, 22 Cong., i sess., II., No. 279 (1831-32) ; Co7t- 
gressional Debates, 22 Cong., i sess., 1763 (1831-32). 



bUIs. 



1S32-33-] TARIFF BILLS. 1 25 

their seats in the fall of 1833. This strengthened Jack- 
son's expressions in his fourth message,^ and had a per- 
ceptible influence on the protective leaders. 

The drift of public sentiment could no longer be dis- Administra- 

, , T 1 • 1 • r TN 1 tion tariff bill- 

regarded. Jackson, in his message 01 December 4, 

devoted more space to the tariff. He recommended a 
cautious reduction of the whole range of duties to a 
revenue standard. The public debt would practically 
be extinguished by January i, 1833, and thus a con- ^ 

siderable burden on the revenue would be taken off. 
On December 2^, the Verplanck Bill, favored by the 
administration, was reported in the House. This bill 
proposed a considerable immediate reduction of duties, 
with still further reduction in 1834 This was a decided 
blow at protection. The bill was, however, defeated 
by skilful manoeuvring: debate dragged along; amend- 
ments were proposed and carried through; and finally 
the bill became almost unrecognizable. At last, on 
February 12, Clay asked permission to introduce a tariff Clay's 
measure. Calhoun seconded Clay's efforts ; and the ^"^^'^ 
compromise measure was ushered in. Calhoun ap- 
proved of the general objects for which the bill was 
introduced. He was no advocate of any policy by 
which manufacturing interests would sustain a rude 
shock. While he objected to many of the details, 
he thought that, as a spirit of mutual compromise 
should prevail, no difficulty would arise in settling dif- 
ferences.2 The measure was railroaded through Con- 
gress, having been before it only two weeks when it 
was passed in both Houses, February, 26, 1833. 

A few days after the passage of the measure, Cal- Calhoun's 
houn specified the details to which he had objected. 
He thought the reduction too slow in the first period, 

^ Statesman's Manual^ II. 785, 786. 

2 Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., 477, 478, 791 (1832-33). 



126 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Issue of 
resistance. 



Calhoun 
yields. 



and eventually too rapid, and the time for final re- 
duction too remote. By the terms of the bill, all the 
duties imposed by the act of 1832 exceeding 20 per 
cent were to have -^^ of all excess over 20 per cent taken 
off every second year, beginning January i, 1834, and 
continuing till 1840. Then two sharp reductions were 
to take place, and after July i, 1842, duties would stand 
at the uniform rate of 20 per cent. Home valuation, 
another objectionable feature, had been provided for by 
amendment at a late stage in the progress of the bill, 
and was intended to render the measure more accept- 
able to the protectionists. Calhoun had immediately 
declared that such an amendment could not be ac- 
cepted: it was unconstitutional. Senator Clayton how- 
ever at once declared that either that clause or nothing 
would be offered. If South Carolina accepted the bill 
as thus amended, she would have a pretext for re- 
scinding her Ordinance ; if she rejected it, she would 
be forced into a conflict with the general government, 
or make herself ridiculous. The South Carolina rep- 
resentatives declared that the alternative presented was 
one of acceptance or secession.^ They would accept 
the measure as a peace offering. Calhoun was un- 
doubtedly very much disturbed by the prospect of a 
collision between his State and the central government, 
and on this account was disposed to compromise. But 
the principal reason why he threw his influence in favor 
of the compromise measure was that it approximated 
very closely to what he had desired. 

Seven years later,^ Calhoun indicated what terms he 
would have proposed and " dictated " if circumstances 
had not prevented: to allow till 1840 for the reduction, 
taking off annually ^ of all duties in excess of 1 5 per cent. 

* See Speeches by Stephen D. Miller and Robert W. Barnwell 
in Cofivention of i8;i2> PP- 16-18. 

* Congressional Globe, 26 Cong., i sess., 97 (1S39-40). 



1833-] COMPROMISE MEASURE. 127 

He asserted that no gratitude was due to Clay for his part 

in that struggle ; that he had the mastery over him on 

that occasion : Clay had compromised to save himself; 

for he would have experienced difficulty in bringing 

even his constituents to sustain his previous system. 

But the principal fact was that Jackson by means of his 

Proclamation had drawn round him Clay's supporters. 

Jackson and Webster were then in combination, and all 

the advantage would have accrued to Webster if the I 

controversy had ended without a compromise. 

The passage of the tariff measure was only one part Olive branch , 
of the program which the leaders of the dominant com- sword, 
bination had laid out. More important was the passage 
of a measure for more effectually securing the collection 
of the revenue. There was a disposition on the part of 
Congress and the President to go to some length to ap- 
pease South Carolina ; but there was also a determination 
that the supremacy of the federal government should in 
any case be recognized and sustained. In fact, there J 
were those who, like Webster, would have preferred 
first to compel submission to the federal laws, and then 
to make whatever alterations in those laws expediency 
might dictate.^ But as it was, concession and compul- I 

sion went hand in hand : the Compromise Measure and 
the Force Bill received the President's signature on the 
same day. The President in his message to Congress, 
December 4, had promised, as has been stated,^ that, if 
difficulties should be experienced in executing the laws, 
he would give prompt notice and would suggest the 
course to be pursued. On January 16, 1833, having re- 
ceived the documents embodying the acts of the South 
Carolina authorities, he submitted to Congress a long 
message, in which the condition of affairs was described 
and additional powers asked for. The provisions of 

1 Lodge, Webster, p. 223. ^ See above, page 125. 



128 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Jackson 
asks more 
authority. 



"The Bloody 
Bill." 



the acts passed by the South Carolina Legislature to 
enforce the Ordinance were presented at some length, 
and an argument was advanced to show that the Con- 
stitution was competent for its own defence. Authority 
was asked to alter or abolish certain ports of entry, and 
to use the regular forces and the militia to protect the 
officers of customs in the discharge of their duties, if 
necessary. Finally, it was suggested that it might be 
desirable to revive the sixth section of the act of 
March 3, 18 15, and to provide that, where suit was 
brought in the State courts against an individual for 
an act done under a law of the United States, the case 
might be removed into the United States Circuit Court 
without a copy ot the record ; that individuals acting 
under the United States laws and receiving injuries for 
disobedience of the State laws, might seek redress in 
the federal courts ; and that the marshals might be 
authorized to make provision for keeping prisoners.'^ 

On January 21, the very day of the irregular sus- 
pension of the Ordinance by the State Rights leaders, 
a bill embodying the foregoing recommendations was 
introduced into the Senate by Wilkins of Pennsylvania, 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Immediately 
there began a bitter opposition on the part of Calhoun 
and the other South Carolina leaders. Wilkins advo- 
cated the passage of the bill in a speech in which he 
attacked the doctrine of nullification. On the 22d, 
Calhoun set up his Hne of opposition in a set of reso- 
lutions on his favorite topic, of the relation between 
the States and the general government.^ If his views 
were sound, there could not be found in the Consti- 
tution any authority for granting what Jackson asked. 

On February 15 and 16, Calhoun delivered an elab- 



* Statesman's Manual, II. 808-826. 

* Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., 191 (1832-33). 



I833-] FORCE BILL. 1 29 

orate speech on the Force Bill, It placed at the Calhoun 
disposal of the President, he maintained, the army, P^^^^^ts. 
the navy, and the entire militia of the nation to make 
war against a sovereign State, not as a State, but 
as an aggregation of outlaws.^ It did not, in fact, 
do so reputable a thing: it did not declare war; it 
decreed a massacre. South Carolina would resist its 
enforcement to death itself. Webster followed Cal- 
houn, but did not reply to his remarks on the Force 
Bill. He drifted off into a discussion of secession and 
nullification, placing the controversy back on the higher 
and more extensive ground mapped out by Calhoun on 
January 22.^ Calhoun rejoined on February 26, restat- 
ing his old arguments.^ Two days later, he declared 
that South Carolina would not attempt to stop the pro- 
ceedings of the federal courts, but would maintain the 
authority of her own judiciary. South Carolina would 
employ force only to resist force. He regretted that 
she could not appeal to the sense of justice of the 
general government. 

In the House, the South Carolina Representatives South 
were more fiery. " The President," cried out Warren stands"out, 
R. Davis, " is impatient to wreak his vengeance on 
South Carolina. Be it so. Pass your measure, sir; 
unchain your tiger; let loose your war dogs as soon 
as you please." He knew his State, he said ; she would 
resist the bill with scorn and indignation, whether the 
compromise measure were passed or not. South Caro- 
lina had received the insolent mandate of the President 
commanding her to retrace her steps, and for answer 
she sent him back the message from Utica to Csesar : 
" Bid him disband his legions ; restore the common- 
wealth to liberty; abide the judgment of the Roman 

1 Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., 535, 536 (1832-33). 

2 Ibid., 553-587- * Ibid., 750-774- 

9 



I30 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



McDuffie's 
protest. 



Convention 

called again. 



Convention 
reassembles. 



Senate ; and strive to gain the pardon of the Roman 
people." ^ On the day the measure passed, the ques- 
tion of its title being before the House, McDuffie rose 
to perform a solemn duty. The House was about to 
destroy the rights of the State, was about to bury the 
Constitution. He asked the poor privilege of writing 
its epitaph. He then proposed to amend the title of 
the bill by substituting " An Act to Subvert the Sov- 
ereignty of the States of this Union, to Establish a 
Consolidated Union Without Limitation of Powers, 
and to Make the Civil Subordinate to the Military 
Power." 2 All declarations and all arguments availed 
nothing. The bill passed both Houses, March i, 1833, 
and on the following day was sent to the President for 
his signature. 

It now remained to see what South Carolina would 
do in her sovereign capacity. On February 5, the presi- 
dent of the Convention, Ex-Governor James Hamilton, 
was officially informed of the arrival of Benjamin Wat- 
kins Leigh, the commissioner of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, bearing the resolutions soliciting South Caro- 
lina to rescind or suspend her Ordinance till after the 
adjournment of Congress.^ The resolutions were ac- 
companied by a request from the commissioner that 
the Convention be called together at an early moment. 
President Hamilton thought that no action would be 
taken on the proposition submitted till it was known 
what Congress would do, and therefore, in the procla- 
mation which he issued on February 13, he named March 
II as the day for reassembling. 

At noon on the appointed day the delegates gathered 
in the hall of the House of Representatives.^ Hamil- 

1 Congressional Debates, 22 Cong., 2 sess., 1769, 1770(1832-33). 
"^ Ibid., 1903. 

^ Journal of the Sonth Carolina Cotwentiott of i%2)?>i P- 12. 
* For the proceedings see iht Jotirnal of the Convention. 



1833] ORDINANCE RESCINDED. 131 

ton, who, as Governor of the State, had been chosen 
president of the Convention at the first session, resigned ; 
and Governor Robert Y. Hayne was immediately elected 
to fill the vacancy. The Virginia commissioner was 
invited within the bar, and every courtesy extended to 
him. Calhoun, who had hastened from Washington 
after the adjournment of Congress, to use his influence 
to have the convention accept the compromise meas- 
ure, was invited to a seat on the floor and attracted a 
great deal of attention. A committee of twenty-one 
was instructed to take into consideration the communi- 
cation from Virginia, and all other matters involved in •% 
the controversy, and to suggest the course the con- \ 
vention should pursue. On the i8th, the committee 
brought in an Ordinance rescinding the Ordinance of Ordinance 
November 24, 1832, and all acts of the Legislature 
passed in pursuance thereof except the act amending 
the militia laws ; accompanying the Ordinance was an 
elaborate report on the compromise measure. The re- 
scinding Ordinance was adopted March 15, by a vote of 
153 to 4. 

The Convention was convinced that the attitude of Who was 
South Carolina had been the one factor in bringing 
about the reform of the tariff, and that therefore a glo- 
rious victory had been won. South Carolina, said 
Governor Hayne, had not obtained all she had a right 
to demand ; but such an opportunity was offered for 
adjusting the controversy that, consistently with her pre- 
vious representations, she could not do otherwise than 
take advantage of it. It was generally claimed that 
the State had obtained substantially what she had con- 
tended for during the ten preceding years. Some ex- 
treme members were inclined to deny that any triumph 
worth speaking of had been achieved ; but the majority 
echoed the sentiments of Turnbull, who declared that it 
was no little victory to have " foiled the barbarian fury" 



132 



ISSUE JOINED. 



[Ch. VII. 



Coercion 
ignored. 



Force Bill 
nullified. 



of General Jackson. " With but our one-gun battery 
of Nullification, we have driven the enemy from his 
moorings, compelled him to slip his cables and put to 
sea." In these boasting moods, the nullifiers evidently 
confined their thoughts solely to the tariff issue. They 
would have experienced some embarrassment in admit- 
ting other considerations just at that time. What had 
become of all their dread of consolidation? What had 
they meant by asserting that they were not fighting 
merely over a scale of duties, but over great principles? 
What of their subsequent declarations that the struggle 
had only begun? What of the Force Bill? Was it 
not the most striking embodiment of centralizing ten- 
dencies that had yet been made? What would they 
do with it? 

Some said that it was a dead letter, and needed no 
attention; but the committee of twenty-one thought 
differently. It submitted a long report, declaring that 
the act established a dangerous precedent ; that it was 
permanent, and might be put into operation at any 
time; and its object was to consolidate the government. 
It was recommended that the Convention nullify it, in 
other words, that the Convention declare the law void 
within the limits of South Carolina, and require the 
Legislature to take the necessary steps to prevent its 
enforcement, and to inflict the proper penalty on any 
person doing any act in pursuance of it. What would 
be the proper penalty to inflict on the army and navy, 
and the militia? McDuffie ridiculed the proposed Or- 
dinance, asking how the committee would nullify the 
army provision of the Force Bill. The Convention ac- 
cepted the recommendation of the committee, and, on 
March i8, adopted both the report and the Anti-Force 
Bill Ordinance^ by a vote of 132 to 19. On the same 
day the Convention dissolved, and the State's interests 
^ See Appendix B. 



1833.] FORCE BILL NULLIFIED. 133 

were once more intrusted to her ordinary authorities. Convention 
It had been the wish of some delegates that the Con- dissolved, 
vention should continue its existence so that it might 
be ready to aid Georgia in the Cherokee controversy; 
but General Hamilton disposed of this by remarking 
that the " good king " would not " touch a hair " on 
Georgia's head. The " amiable monarch," he observed, 
had two measures of justice, one for Georgia and an- 
other for South Carohna. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



SIGNIFICANCE OF NULLIFICATION. 



A victory for 
the Union. 



Tariff rates. 



The struggle was thus brought to a close ; and what 
had it settled? What had been gained by a resort to 
such an unusual remedy, that could not have been 
accomplished through the ordinary channels? Which 
side had really come out of the controversy victorious? 

All things considered, it must be admitted that the 
issue of the controversy was decidedly a victory for the 
general government, at least so far as principles are 
concerned. It is true that the State's immediate griev- 
ance had been partially removed, that the tariff sys- 
tem had undergone a considerable degree of alteration ; 
but the reform was not by any means so thorough- 
going as South Carolina had demanded. On February 
8, 1832, McDuffie, Chairman of the Committee of Ways 
and Means, had submitted to the House, as has been 
indicated,^ a tariff bill which, in substance, proposed to 
reduce all duties on imports to 125^ per cent ad valorem? 
and this bill the South Carolina State Rights and Free 
Trade Convention of 1832 formally approved as indicat- 
ing the true constitutional point to which duties might 
fall. The measure, which the nullifiers paraded as a 
trophy at the close of the struggle, provided for only a 
very gradual reduction of duties ; and only at the end of 



* See page 124. 

2 Congressional Debates, 11 Cong., i sess., 1763(1831-32). Mc- 
Duffie and three other Southern members constituted the majority 
of the committee. 



I833-] NATIONAL SUPREMACY MAINTAINED. 135 ] 

i 

nine years was the uniform rate of 20 per cent to be !! 

reached. It would seem that the nulhfiers should at 

least have restrained their enthusiasm within bounds. j 

Furthermore, it would be far from the truth to say Convention 

that the action of Congress in 1833 is to be attributed "°t decisive. I 

solely to the attitude of South Carolina. It has already ' 

been pointed out that the conditions were ripe for i 

reform. South Carolina's opposition at most did little i 

more than hasten what, in all probability, must have \ 

come about within a comparatively short time. The ' 

revenue of the government under the tariff of 1832 was j 

too large for its necessities, and needed to be reduced. l 

But this is not all. If we may believe the declara- National j 

tions of the leaders of the nulhfiers before and after the s"P''^'"^^y- | 

compromise, the mere question of a scale of duties was j 

an insignificant element in the struggle. Whether the I 

general government or the State was supreme, whether ; 

the Constitution made a nation or a league, whether \ 

there should be a government of the majority or a gov- ! 

ernment of the minority, whether each State should >. 

hold its destiny in its own hands, whether any opening | 

should remain through which attacks might be directed | 

against the peculiar institution of the South, — all these j 

made up the real issue, and all these, except one per- | 

haps, had been emphatically decided against the State, j 

so far as they could be decided peaceably. i 

As for the unique doctrine on which the State had Nullification ] 

placed her reliance, had it not broken down at every ^ 2,1 ure. ^, 

point, and had not the expectations of all its advocates -' 

been disappointed ? The leaders entered upon the ■; 

struggle confidently reckoning upon the sympathy of ■; 

the Executive ; and we find the President up in arms 1 

and determined at every hazard to maintain the suprem- I 

acy of the Union. South Carolina looked for the en- | 

couragement and support of her sister States ; and yet ? 

her measures were buried beneath the logic and indig- \ 

';. 



136 SIGNIFICANCE. [Ch. VIII. 

nation of twenty-three out of twenty-four of them. 
The remedy was to be above all things peaceful ; and 
yet it became evident that it could be enforced only at 
the risk of a civil war. The nullifiers expected the united 
support of the people of South Carolina; and yet, with 
all the pressure that was brought to bear, they were 
able to command for their measures only a majority. 
Where, then, was there a justification for the boasting 
over the outcome .'* Surely Robert Barnwell Smith 
(Rhett) was right for once when he told the Convention 
of 1833 that little could be found that furnished " cause 
for a congratulation and triumph." 
The doctrine Still South Carolina continued to boast of the glori- 
ous stand she had made for liberty in 1832, and appar- 
ently retained the highest opinion of her remedy. She 
did not bring herself to the point of resorting to it 
again, but she brought it out on more than one occa- 
sion, and held it up as a threat to the protectionists. 
During the tariff discussion in Congress in 1842, there 
was again talk in South Carolina of nullifying any 
measure that might be passed; and the State Legis- 
lature went so far as to assert the validity of the 
nullification doctrine.^ The people of the State had 
come to regard the compromise measure as a treaty 
" made between belligerent parties with arms in their 
hands, — solemnly ratified by the federal government on 
the one part, and the Convention of South Carolina 
on the other, and deposited among the archives of our 
country "; and therefore, when it seemed probable that 
a high protective measure would be forced upon them 
in 1842, their indignation knew no bounds. 

Governor Hammond touched on the question in 1844, 
and explained why South Carolina did not resort to nul- 

1 Laws of South Carolina (1842), and Messages of Governors 
Henagan, Richardson, and Hammond, 1840, 1841, 1844. See 
Appendices C and D below. 



1833-44] NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMED. 137 

lification in 1842. The State, he said, was then closely Tariff of 1842. 
united to the Democratic party on certain questions of 
great moment, and this party had carried the Congres- 
sional elections by a large majority. South Carolina 
had awaited the action of the new Congress. But the 
new Congress introduced no reforms, and Governor 
Hammond reminded the State that she was bound by 
her history and her principles to bring all her resources 
to bear against the established policy, even physical 
force if necessary. The possibility that the protective 
policy might be continued when the year approached 
for the uniform rate of 20 per cent to take effect, was 
present in the minds of some of the leaders in 1833; 
and James Hamilton, Jr., in the Convention of that year, 
had introduced a resolution pledging the State to resist, 
in such a contingency, by interposition or by any other 
mode she might deem expedient. The Convention, 
however, thought the resolution inexpedient, and voted 
not to consider it.^ 

It remains now to point out certain general effects of Effects of the 
the nullification controversy, and to suggest its connec- '^o^troverby. 
tion with the subsequent history of South Carolina. 
Attention has already been called to the fact that a 
conviction had grown up that the interests of the North 
and the South were diametrically opposed. The con- 
troversy undoubtedly served to deepen and strengthen 
this conviction. Connected with this variance, and es- 
pecially worthy of notice as a result of the struggle, is 
the alienation of the greater part of the people of South 
Carolina from the general government, and a disposition 
to look to secession as an ultimate necessity. 

At an early stage of the struggle the value of any 
connection wnth the Union at all had been called into 
question, and this fact had aroused Calhoun to the 

1 Proceedings of the Conveniiott of i^j,^, p. 6. 



138 



SIGNIFICANCE. 



[Ch. VIII. 



Secession 
affirmed. 



Early dis- necessity of taking some positive step. At a meeting 
in Columbia in the summer of 1827, President Cooper, 
of tlie South CaroHna College, had stirred up no little 
excitement by concluding his speech as follows: "I 
have said that we shall, erelong, be compelled to cal- 
culate the value of our Union ; and to inquire of what 
use to us is this most unequal alliance by which the 
South has always been the loser and the North always 
the gainer? Is it worth our while to continue this 
union of States where the North demand to be our mas- 
ters and we are required to be their tributaries .-' Who, 
with the most insulting mockery, call the yoke they put 
upon us the American System ! The question, how- 
ever, is fast approaching to the alternative, submission 
or separation."^ In 1828, James Hamilton, in his 
Walterborough speech, had echoed this sentiment; and 
before 1833 speaker after speaker had repeated it with 
greater emphasis. More important, however, are the 
formal expressions of the representative bodies of the 
State as to the right of secession. So far as appears, 
the first formal declaration of the right of secession was 
made in a set of resolutions adopted by the Legislature, 
^^K^ Cj December 20, 1828. Of course the adoption of the 
' "Exposition" of that year formally committed the 
State to the doctrine. We have other declarations in 

183 1 and 1832 ; 2 and the Ordinance of nullification of 

1832 asserted the right, but made its exercise contingent 
on the action of the general government. 

1 Niles Re^s;ister, XXXIII. 27-32. 

2 South Ca?-olina Laws (1828), p. 197 ; Ibid. (1831), p. 29 ; Ibid., 
(1832), p. 29. In the set of resolutions adopted in 1832 we find 
the following : " Each State of the Union has the right, whenever 
it may deem such a course necessary for the preservation of its 
liberty or its interest, to secede peaceably from the Union, and 
that there is no constitutional power in the general government, 
much less in the Executive Department, to retain, by force, such 
State in the Union." 



1827-33] RIGHT OF SECESSION AFFIRMED. 1 39 

It is undoubtedly true that the right of secession was 
more generally admitted than was the right of nullifica- 
tion. Such men, for instance, as William Drayton and 
Langdon Cheves rejected the latter doctrine, but un- 
qualifiedly accepted the former. ^ Langdon Cheves Langdon 
opposed nullification mainly on the ground of ex- ^^^^' 
pediency. His proposal was to take measures to secure 
the union of the Southern States, and to do nothing 
without their co-operation ; for resistance by a single 
State would be abortive. The question, he said, was Southern 
a great Southern question, " We cannot, therefore, proposed, 
either in policy or justice, in my opinion, act without 
seeking or awaiting their co-operation. This is the 
more imperiously our duty, if we rely upon their co- 
operation in any difficulties which may involve the 
employment of national force. I therefore deprecate a 
separate state action on the part of this State, at this 
time, as premature and impolitic." ^ Whether or not 
Cheves, before the struggle was over, would have been 
glad to see the Southern States unite and secede, is a 
matter of some doubt. In 1830 he thought that, if the 
union was effected, secession would not be necessary, 
because the demands of the South would be conceded. 
But we certainly find him a few years later advocating 

1 Drayton, speaking at a State Rights and Free Trade Celebra- 
tion held in Charleston in 1830, said : " A crisis might arise when 
the bonds of union ought to be broken. The right of the state to 
secede from the Union, I unqualifiedly concede ; but so long as she 
belongs to it, if she be not bound by its laws, the monstrous 
anomalies would exist of a government where acts were not obli- 
gatory upon its citizens, and of a state constituting one of the 
members of the union whilst denying the authority of its laws." 
Proceedings of the Slate Rights Celebration at Charleston, ]u\y i, 
1830: Nullification Tracts (Boston Athenaeum, Library No. B. 
1065). 

2 Ibid. See also a letter of Cheves in Thomas, Reminiscences 
and Sketches, II. 232. 



I40 SIGNIFICANCE. [Ch. VIII. 

union for another purpose, and the part he played in 
the Nashville Convention of 1848 is very well known. 
Disunionists Whatever the truth with regard to Cheves, there 
° ' ^■^' certainly were men in the State who were openly in 

favor of disunion in 1833. Phillips, of Chesterfield 
County, told the Convention of that year that there 
were honest men in his neighborhood standing aloof 
from both the unionists and the nullifiers, waiting for 
the formation of a party which would " go boldly and 
openly for disunion." ^ And there were many more 
who believed that the attempt to secede would have to 
be made at no distant day. Judge Harper cautioned 
the Convention which rescinded the Nullification Ordi- 
nance that they were at the beginning, not at the end of 
the contest. " In less than another year, we may be 
called to arms. . . . All men agree that we cannot 
safely intermit our military preparations. I myself 
believe that a contest will come at no distant day." ^ 
Robert Barnwell Smith represented the extremists. He 
could scarcely contain himself when he heard the senti- 
ment expressed in a report submitted to the convention 
of 1833 that " ardently attached to the union of these 
States, the people of South Carolina were still more 
devoted to the rights of the States." He could not play 
the hypocrite, he said. He believed that he expressed 
the feelings of his constituents when he declared that 
under the government as administered there was no 
South Caro- ^ ardent attachment on their part for the Union ; South 
Carolina had no rights under the Union but such as she 
was prepared to maintain by force ; and South Carolina 
therefore must be an armed camp.^ 

McDufiie declared that there was in the government a 
proclivity to consolidation. The Southern States were, 
by their peculiar interests and institutions, the sentinels 

^ Proceedings of the Convention ^1833, p. Gd. 
2 Ibid.^ 52. 8 Ibid., 24-27. 



lina an armed 
camp 



1830-60.] SECESSION THE LOGICAL OUTCOME. 141 

of liberty. He would bid them with his last breath " to McDuffie 
act as if the day were at hand when they must defend disunion, 
their freedom." The vigilance of the people of South 
Carolina must not be abated. " I tell them we have 
greater need to be prepared to defend ourselves against 
these people than against a foreign enemy. I have 
heard them even in Congress talk openly of attacking 
us ; and that in a manner, with exultation, that would 
render fiends themselves as fit confederates for us as 
these men. Without such preparations, and without a 
strong military spirit, no people ever yet maintained 
its liberties. But all our peculiar circumstances — all 
our institutions — render a thorough system of defence 
absolutely indispensable to our safety as well as freedom. 
Our militia should be as well trained as the armies of 
Napoleon." ^ 

All this was not mere talk. We must bear in mind 
the attention that was bestowed upon the militia after Secession 
1832; and we should not lose sight of the abolition oiftcome.^ 
movement, which had begun to make itself felt in a 
very disagreeable manner. This movement, coming just 
when it did, when the people of South Carolina were 
already uneasy and irritated, prevented any considerable 
abatement of feeling, and added volume to the current 
that was to sweep the State out of the Union in i860. 
The secession movement was well defined in South 
Carolina as early as 1830. 

* Proceedings of the Convention 0/ i8^2f P- 41* 



APPENDIX A. 

CALHOUN'S STATEMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL 
PRINCIPLES, 1824. 

Washington, D. C, July 3, 1824. 

My Dear Sir: — In asking my opinion of the Con- 
stitution, I understand you to refer to that portion of 
the instrument which relates to State rights, and in 
complying with your request I will accordingly limit 
my observations to that point of view. 

If there is one portion of the Constitution which I 
most admire, it is the distribution of power between the 
States and general Government. It is the only portion 
that is novel and peculiar. The rest has been more or 
less compiled. This is our invention and is altogether 
our own, and I consider it to be the greatest improve- 
ment which has been made in the science of government, 
after the division of power into the legislative, executive, 
and judicial. Without it, free states in the present con- 
dition of the world could not exist, or must have existed 
without safety or responsibility. If limited to a small 
territory, they must be crushed by the great monarchial 
powers or exist only at their discretion ; but if extended 
over a great surface, the concentration of power and pat- 
ronage necessary for government would speedily end in 
terror. It is only by this admirable distribution that a 
great extent of territory, with a proportional population 
and power, can be reconciled with freedom, and conse- 
quently that safety and respectability be given to free 
States. As much then as I value freedom, in the same 
degree do I value State rights. But it is not only in the 



144 APPENDIX A. 

abstract that I admire the distribution of power between 
the general Government and the States. I approve of 
the actual distribution of the two powers which is made 
by our Constitution. Were it in my power, I would 
make no change. 

These remarks bring me to the question which I 
suppose you had more immediately in view. I mean 
that of the construction of the Constitution, or, in other 
words, how ought the line which separates the powers 
of the general and State Governments to be drawn 
where it is not distinctly delineated by the instrument 
itself. I can give but one solution to this interesting 
question, and that is, it ought to be drawn in the spirit 
of the instrument itself. I know that there has been 
an anxious desire among many of our best patriots to 
devise some one general and artificial rule of construc- 
tion to be applied to any portion of the Constitution, 
but I cannot persuade myself that it is practicable, and 
believe that all such attempts must end in weakening 
rather than strengthening the rights of the States. It 
has been said, for instance, that the construction ought 
to be invariably rigid against the power of the general 
Government. The rule allows no discretion, but must 
be applied with equal severity to any portion of the 
Constitution, — to that which delegates power acknowl- 
edged by all to be essential to the safety of the nation, 
and to that which provides checks against the abuse of 
such power. I feel confident that such an application 
of the rule (and without it, it is nothing) must lead into 
perpetual difficulty and contradiction, which must finally 
bring into discredit those who act on it, and thereby 
weaken their authority when it may be most required. 
Believing that no general and artificial rule can be 
devised that will not act mischievously in its application, 
I am forced to the result that any doubtful portion of 
the Constitution must be construed by itself in reference 



CALHOUN'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. 145 

to the true meaning and intent of the framers of the 
instrument; and consequently that the construction 
must, in each part, be more or less rigid, as may be 
necessary to effect the intention. 

Such being my general principles, it only remains, in 
complying with your request, to apply them to what 
I have said or done since I have been in public life in 
order to test their practical application, and I think it 
may be said with confidence that I have never uttered 
a sentence in any speech, report, or word in conversation 
that could give offence to the most ardent defender of 
State rights. On this point my character has been 
grossly misrepresented to the people of Virginia. Feel- 
ing the profoundest respect for the States, and believ- 
ing their honor not to be greater than it ought to be, 
I have at least never spoken disrespectfully of them, or 
endeavored to establish principles that would weaken 
them ; and for the truth of the assertion I appeal with 
confidence to my opinions as recorded, both in my 
speeches and reports. I have gone through a short, 
but active political life, and in trying times, and if hostile 
to the rights of the States, some evidence must be found 
of it in one or the other. If, then, I have given offence, 
it must be by my acts, and by them I am willing to be 
tried, and, if I mistake not, I have never done an act 
which, if condemned in me, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, 
and Mr. Monroe must not (?) be equally condemned. 
There are none of mine which are not covered by the 
example of deliberate acts of these enlightened states- 
men. For example, I am accused of advocating the 
power of Congress to incorporate a National Bank ; but 
those who make the accusation, and who profess to 
admire Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson, seem to forget 
that I had the weight of their authority with me. The 
former approved the bill which I contributed to pass, 
and the latter approved of one which extended a branch 



146 APPENDIX A. 

of the old United States Bank to New Orleans. Must 
I then be judged more rigidly than these old Republican 
veterans, and they be excused for what I am con- 
demned? Is this the justice of the ancient dominion? 

Nor is there anything in the principle on which I 
advocated the passage of the bank bill calculated to 
give ofifence. I said nothing on the Constitution. I left 
each member to make up his own opinion on that point. 
I felt satisfied that the power existed, but at the same 
time respected those who took the opposite view, for I 
have always considered the power the least clear of 
those which have been exercised by Congress. I rested 
the argument for its passage on the necessity of restor- 
ing specie payments, at the time the legal currency of 
the United States had ceased to circulate, and to regu- 
late, or to fix the value of that which did circulate. In 
fact, we had no currency but notes of some specie pay- 
ing banks incorporated by the States, and wholly under 
their authority. Congress had wholly lost its consti- 
tutional power over that subject. However brought 
about, a state of things existed wholly incompatible 
with the provisions of the Constitution. To give to 
Congress virtually the power delegated to it by that in- 
strument of fixing and regulating the value of the cur- 
rency of the nation was the great object which I had 
in view in aiding the passage of the bill incorporating 
the United States Bank, and there certainly is much 
satisfaction in the reflection that this clearly constitu- 
tional object has been fully realized. If the measure 
can ever be justified, it was justifiable in the then exist- 
ing circumstances. 

It is again objected to me that I am a friend to the 
system of internal improvements, and that I assist a 
power in Congress to make roads and canals. Here I 
may cover myself by the same authority. Mr. Jeffer- 
son, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Monroe have again and again 



CALHOUN'S CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES. 147 

approved of bills making appropriations for internal im- 
provements ; nor have I, in any instance, gone beyond 
their example, though it is true that Mr. Madison rejected 
the bill which I contributed to pass, and which set aside 
the bonds of the United States Bank as a fund for inter- 
nal improvements. It ought, however, to be remem- 
bered the bill was not presented till the last moment of 
the session, when, as you know, ... in the multitude of 
bills presented for consideration, but little time is left 
for the reflection of the President. I am satisfied that 
it is owing to that cause that his argument on that occa- 
sion partakes so little of his usual accuracy. In fact, 
his leading objection that the consent of the States 
could give no constitutional power, was misapplied. 
The truth is that the bill did not even make an appro- 
priation of money. It simply set aside a certain fund 
for the purpose of improvements ; that is, it provided 
that it should be appropriated to no other purpose, 
thus leaving it to be hereafter determined in what man- 
ner it should be appropriated and applied, whether with 
or without an amendment of the Constitution, providing 
only that it should not be applied but by the consent of 
the States to be affected. 

I think it cannot be doubted that if the power existed 
in Congress to appropriate money for internal improve- 
ment for which we have the sanction of the three distin- 
guished citizens to whom I have referred, there was 
nothing in the bill to make it unconstitutional. But 
I am really at a loss to know why this objection should 
be made against me. What distinguished public man 
is there now on the stage to whom the same may not be 
made? And most of them are men much more deeply 
committed than myself. I have never yet committed 
myself beyond the mere right of making an appropria- 
tion. I have nowhere in my public capacity asserted 
the right of applying money so appropriated without 



148 APPENDIX A. 

the consent of the States, or individuals to be affected, 
I am perfectly open to the examination of that question 
should I ever be called on to act. It is, however, due 
to candor to say that my impression is that the power 
does exist to a certain extent, but as I have always 
believed that it should not be exercised without a clear 
necessity, and as I do believe that the mere right of 
applying our money, not as a sovereign without the 
consent of those to be affected, but as a mere proprietor 
with their assent, will be found sufficient in practice, 
I have carefully abstained from coming to any final 
conclusion until it becomes absolutely necessary. 

I hope what I have written is sufficiently explicit. 
It is intended to be perfectly so, but if you should find 
it not so, I will at all times cheerfully give any addi- 
tional explanation which you may require. 
With sincere respect, I am, 

J. C. CALHOUN. 

Letter to Hon. Robt. S. Garnet, Virginia. Daily 
Advertiser, Montgomery, Ala., March, 7, 1893. 



APPENDIX B. 

ORDINANCE NULLIFYING THE FORCE BILL. 

South Carolina Convention. 

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in 
Convention assembled, do declare and ordain that the 
Act of Congress of the United States, entitled " An 
Act further to provide for the collection of duties on 
imports," approved 2nd March, 1833, is unauthorized 
by the Constitution of the United States, subversive of 
that instrument, destructive of public liberty, and that 
the same is and shall be deemed null and void within 
the limits of this State ; and that it shall be the duty of 
the Legislature, at such time as they may deem ex- 
pedient, to adopt such measures and pass such acts as 
may be necessary to prevent the enforcement thereof, 
and to inflict proper penalties on any person who shall 
do any act in executing or enforcing the same within 
the limits of this State. 

We do further ordain and declare that the allegiance 
of the citizens of this State, while they continue such, 
is due to said State ; and that obedience only, and not 
allegiance, is due by them to any other power or author- 
ity to whom a control over them has been or may 
be delegated by the State ; and the General Assembly 
of the said State is hereby empowered from time to time 
when they deem it proper, to provide for the adminis- 
tration to the citizens and officers of the State, or such 
of the said officers as they may think fit, of suitable oaths 
or affirmations, binding them to the observance of such 



150 APPENDIX B. 

allegiance, and abjuring all other allegiance, and also to 
define what shall amount to a violation of their alle- 
giance, and to provide the proper punishment for such 
violation. 

R. Y. Hayne, President. 

Journal of the South Carolina CoJivention ^/i833. (March 
i8, 1833.) 



i 



APPENDIX C. 

PROTEST AGAINST A PROTECTIVE TARIFF. 
From the Message of Governor Henagan, 1840. 

I MUST confess that I am not so much surprised as 
pained at this demonstration on the part of one of 
our sovereign States of this Confederation, to fix again, 
if possible, this odious system upon us. To this viola- 
tion of the Constitution, this act of wanton and dehberate 
injustice, aggravated by the recollection of our former 
arduous struggle against it, South Carolina will never 
consent. . . . May Heaven spare us the renewal of 
those scenes of agitation which lately shook the Union 
to the centre, and avert that necessity which would force 
a sovereign State to seek common justice and vindicate 
her plainest rights by the strength of her own arm. 

South Carolina Laws (1840). 



APPENDIX D. 

PROTEST AGAINST THE TARIFF OF 1841. 

From the Message of Governor Richardson, Novem- 
ber 23, 1841. 

The living generation, who were witnesses of the 
struggles and pledges in the late contest for her con- 
stitutional rights, have not yet passed away ; the monu- 
ments of the times have not yet perished ; the very 
altars consecrated by her vows are still before us ; — 
even her preparations for defence are still in readiness 
and requisition ; the age, its records and recollections, 
have scarcely become a part of history, before the very 
burdens and oppressions which they were intended to 
resist are renewed with shameful infidelity, which seeks 
neither pretext nor justification. A home valuation, 
cash duties, and an unreasonable and exorbitant reve- 
nue of more than thirty million dollars, it is believed, 
are little less onerous in amount, or unconstitutional in 
effect, than the enormous forty per cent duties which 
the sovereignty of the State was so sternly interposed 
to resist; and if, upon the principle of all protective 
duties, they are destined to increase to an extent and 
enormity to which our experience in the past as well as 
the tendency of the times forebodes, then it will be for 
you to say whether South Carolina has so fallen from 
her high eminence of sovereignty and independence as 
to submit by silent acquiescence in these wrongs and 
grievances, that there is no mode, no remedy, no meas- 
ure of redress. . . . There can arise no emergency in 
which the hands and hearts of her citizens would not be 
invincibly united in her defence. 

South Carolina Laws (1841). 



APPENDIX E. 

NULLIFICATION REAFFIRMED. 

Report of the Committee on Federal Relations, 1842. 

Each State of the Union, as an independent party 
to the contract, had from the beginning, has now, and 
will retain to the end of time, the undoubted right 
to resort to this test, to try every law which is passed 
by the Federal Legislature; and when that body as- 
sume to make an enactment not sanctioned by that in- 
strument, the States, by all the settled rules of right, may 
refuse their sanction and obedience, and say, " Non in haec 
federa veni." Such we understand to be the fundamen- 
tal principle of State Rights Democracy. South Caro- 
lina Laws (1842). 



APPENDIX F. 

PROTEST AGAINST THE TARIFF OF 1842. 

From the Message of Governor Hammond, 1844. 

The proceedings of the last session of Congress 
form an epoch in our history. With . . . the circum- 
stances under which the Act of Congress, called the 
Compromise Act, was passed, you are familiar. That 
Act was in fact a treaty, made between belligerent par- 
ties with arms in their hands, solemnly ratified by the 
federal government, on the one part, and the Conven- 
tion of the State of South Carolina on the other, and 
deposited among the archives of our country. . . . By 
that treaty South Carolina bound herself to submit for 
nine years longer to an unconstitutional and most op- 
pressive tariff, in consideration that its exactions should 
be gradually reduced during that period. ... In 1842 
the period arrived for the federal government to fulfil 
its stipulations and reduce the tariff to twenty per cent 
ad valorem or lower. . . . But, instead of reducing 
them, the rates of duties were increased ... to a higher 
point than the tariff which South Carolina had delared 
null and void within her own limits in 1832 ; which dec- 
laration led to the Compromise Act. History furnishes 
no instance of a grosser or more insulting breach of faith, 
while perhaps no law has ever been enacted by the regular 
government of a civilized country so subversive of the 
rights and destructive to the interests of any respectable 
portion of its people as the tariff of 1 842, considered in all 
its bearings, is to the rights and interests of the planting 



PROTEST AGAINST THE TARIFF OF 1842. 155 

States of this Confederation. It might naturally have 
been expected that this State . . . would immediately 
nullify the Act ; but she did not. Closely united at the 
time with the great Democratic party of the Union on 
the general principle of government, and on certain 
questions of federal policy of the utmost moment, see- 
ing that this policy had carried the election to the House 
of Representatives by a large majority, she paused and 
determined to await the action of another Congress. 
The new Congress met. , . . Propositions were made in 
both branches to modify the tariff, and signally defeated. 
In the House, where the Democratic majority was large, 
the proposition was disposed of almost without debate ; 
and a majority of the Democrats north of the Potomac 
actually voted against it. There seems to be no reason- 
able or even plausible ground on which to rest a hope 
that this law . . . will ever be repealed, or reduced to 
the standard of the compromise. . . . 

Under these circumstances, it devolves on South Caro- 
lina to decide what course she will pursue in reference to 
the tariff. ... It appears to me that our State is bound, 
by her past history and the principle she professes, . . . 
to adopt such measures as will bring all her moral, con- 
stitutional, and, if necessary, her physical resources in 
direct array against a policy which has never been 
checked but by her interposition, and which impover- 
ishes our cotmtry, revolutionizes our government, and 
overthrows our liberties. South Carolina Laws (1844). 



I rC 



APPENDIX G. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NULLIFICATION. 

The following is a list of authorities consulted in the 
preparation of this monograph. 

V Adams, John Quincy. The Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 

Edited by C. F. Adams, 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1876. 
v^ Benton, Thomas Hart. Thirty Years' View ; or, A History 
of the Working of the American Government for Thirty Years, 
from 1820 to 1850. 2 vols. New York, 1861, 1862. 

Calhoun, John C. Letter to the Hon. Robert S. Garnett, 
of Virginia, dated Washington, D. C., July 3, 1824, printed in 
the Montgomery Daily Advertiser, March 7, 1893. 

Works of John C. Calhoun. Edited by Richard K. 

Crall^. 6 vols. New York, 1883. 
>^v Capers, Henry D. Life and Times of C. G. Memminger. 
Richmond, 1893. 

Charleston Mercury. July 10, 21, 28, 1826; Dec. 26, 
1826; June 18, 28, 1828; July 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 1828; Aug. 4, 
27, 1828; Sept. 8, 10, 1828; Oct. 9, 1828. 

Chase, George Bigelow. Lowndes of South Carolina. An 
Historical and Genealogical Memoir. Boston, 1876. 

Columbia Telescope. July 16, 1828. 

Cooper, Thomas. On the Constitution of the United States 
and the Questions that have arisen on it. Columbia, 1826. 
(Pamphlet.) 

. A Tract on the proposed Alteration of the Tariff, 

submitted to the Consideration of the Members from South 
Carolina in the ensuing Congress of 1823-24. Charleston, 
1823. (Pamphlet.) 
'J . Account of the Trial of Dr. Thomas Cooper before 



BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NULLIFICATION. 1 57 

the Board of Trustees of the South CaroHna College, Dec. 3, 
1832. (Pamphlet.) 
^ Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate 
Government. 2 vols. New York, 1881. 

De Bow, J. D. B. The Political Annals of South Carolina, 
by a citizen. Charleston, 1845. (Pamphlet.) 
^/ Draper, John W. A History of the Civil War in America. 

3 vols. New York, 1867-70. 
V'' Elliot, Jonathan. Debates in the Several State Conventions 
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. 5 vols. Wash- 
ington, 1836. 

Federalist, The. Vol. IX. in Works of Alexander Hamilton. 
Edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. New York and London, 1886. 

Hamilton, James. Five Letters to Governor Hamilton, 
by Anti-Guillotine. Charleston, 1831. (Pamphlet.) 

. Speech of James Hamilton, Jr. On the operations 

of the Tariff on the interests of the South and the Constitution- 
ality of the Means of redressing the grievance. Charleston, 
1828. (Pamphlet.) 

Hammond, James H. Oration on the Life, Character, and 
Services of John C. Calhoun, delivered in Charleston, Nov. 2 1, 
1850, at the request of the City Council. Charleston, 1850. 
(Pamphlet.) 

Hare, J. I. Clark. American Constitutional Law. 2 vols. 
Boston, 1889. 

Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. 
Edited by H. A. Washington. 7 vols. Washington, 1853. 
"^ Johnston, Alexander. Representative American Orations 
to illustrate American Political History, 1 775-1881. 3 vols. 
New York, 1884. 
>-' Laborde, Maximilmn. History of the South Carolina Col- 
lege, from its Incorporation, December, 19, 1801, to Novem- 
ber 25, 1857, including Sketches of its President and Professors. 
Columbia, 1859. 

Lalor, John J. Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political 
Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. 
3 vols. Chicago, 1883, 1884. 



158 APPENDIX G. 

*^ Legar]£, Hugh S. Writings of Hugh Swinton Legar^, con- 
sisting of a Diary of Brussels and Journal of the Rhine ; 
Extracts from his Private and Diplomatic Correspondence ; 
Orations and Speeches ; and Contributions to the New York 
and Southern Reviews. Prefaced by a Memoir of his Life. 
Edited by his Sister. 2 vols. Charleston, 1846. 

^ Lodge, Henry Cabot. Daniel Webster. (American States- 
men Series.) Boston, 1886. 

^/ Maclay, William. Sketches of Debate in the First United 
States Senate (i 789-1 791). 

McDuFFiE, George. Eulogy on Hayne. Charleston, 1840. 
(Pamphlet.) 

V . Essays: One of the People. (Pamphlet, 1821.) 

>^ Madison, James. Journal of the Federal Convention. Edited 
by E. H. Scott. 2 vols. Chicago, 1894. 

s/ . Letters and Other Writings. 4 vols. Philadelphia, 

^ 1865. 

"-'*' March, Charles W. Reminiscences of Congress. New York, 

1853- 

Morse, J. T., Jr. Thomas Jefferson. (American Statesmen 
Series.) Boston, 1886. 

Niles' Weekly Register. 1811-1848. 

O'Neall, John Belton. The Bench and Bar of South Caro- 
lina. 2 vols. Charleston, 1859. 

Perry, Benjamin Franklin. Reminiscences of Public Men. 
Philadelphia, 1883. 

PooRE, Benjamin Perley. Perley's Reminiscences of Sixty 
Years in the National Metropolis. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 
1886. 

Preston, H. W. Documents illustrative of American His- 
tory. 1606-1863. New York, 1886. 

QuiNCY, JosiAH. Figures of the Past from the Leaves of old 
Journals. Boston, 1883. 

Richardson, J. S. An Address to the People. Camden 
Journal, 1830. 

Roosevelt, Theodore. Thomas H. Benton. (American 
Statesmen Series.) Boston and New York, 1890. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY OF NULLIFICATION. 1 59 

'•^ Sargent, Nathan. Public Men and Events from the Com- 
mencement of Mr. Monroe's Administration in 181 7 to the 
Close of Mr. Fillmore's Administration in 1853. 2 vols. Phila- 
delphia, 1875. 
^'' ScHOULER, James. History of the United States of America 

under the Constitution. 5 vols. New York, 1889-189 1. 
v' ScHURZ, Carl. Life of Henry Clay. (American Statesmen 

Series.) 2 vols. New York and Boston, 1888. 
v"" Shaler, N. S. Kentucky. American Commonwealth Series. 
Boston, 1885. 

Smith, William. Speech at Spartanburg, South Carolina, 
Aug. I, 1831. Columbia, 1832. (Pamphlet in Congressional 
Speeches.') 
sj South Carolina. Laws of South Carolina, 1 800-1 850, 
(Containing Acts, Governors' Messages, Resolutions, Reports of 
Committee on Federal Relations, and, at times. Reports of 
certain State Officers). 

South Carolina. Debate in the South Carolina Legislature, 
December, 1830. (Pamphlet.) 
: f South Carolina. Speeches delivered in the Convention of 
the State of South Carolina, held in Columbia, in March, 1833. 
To which is prefixed the Journal of Proceedings. Charleston, 
1833. (Pamphlet.) 

South Carolina. Proceedings of the Celebration of the 
Fourth of July, 1831, at Charleston, by the State Rights and 
Free Trade Party. Charleston, 1831. (Pamphlet.) 
•-./ South Carolina. Proceedings of the Convention of 1832, 
in State Papers on Nullification. Boston, 1834. 

South Carolina. State Rights and Free Trade Convention 
of 1832. Charleston, 1832. (Pamphlet.) 

Stephens, Alexander H. A Constitutional View of the War 
between the States. Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Re- 
sults. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1867. 

Stille, C. J. Life and Services of Joel R. Poinsett. Phil- 
adelphia, 1888. (Pamphlet.) 

Sumner, William G. Andrew Jackson. (American States- 
men Series.) Boston, i886. 



N. 


United States. 




1828). 5 vols. 


V 


United States. 


V 


United States. 


x/ 


United States. 


•v/ 


United States. 



160 APPENDIX G. 

Taussig, F. W. The Tariff History of the United States. 
New York and London, 1888. 

Thoivias, E. S. Reminiscences of the last Sixty Five Years, 
commencing with the Battle of Lexington ; also. Sketch of his 
own Life and Times. 2 vols. Hartford, 1840. 

Turnbull, Robert J. The Crisis, or Essays on the Usurpa- 
tion of the Federal Government, by Brutus. Charleston, 1827. 
(Pamphlet.) 

American State Papers. Finances (1789- 

Annals of Congress (i 789-1823). 
Congressional Debates (1823-183 7). 
Congressional Globe (i 833-1 873). 
Executive Documents. 34 Cong., i sess. 
Vol. IV., No. 10 (1855-56). 

United States. Journals of the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives ( 1 789-1 835). 

United States. Seventh Census, Compendium (1850). 

United States. Statutes at Large, I-V. 

Von Holst, H. The Constitutional and Political History 
of the United States. 6 vols. Chicago, 1889. 

. The Constitutional Law of the United States of 

America. Translated by Alfred Bishop Mason. Chicago, 
1887. 

. John C. Calhoun. (American Statesmen Series.) 

Boston, 1886. 

Warfield, E. D. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 : an 
Historical Study. New York, 1887. 

Williams, Edwin. The Statesman's Manual. 4 vols. New 
York, 1854. 

Wilson, Woodrow. Division and Reunion (i 829-1 889). 
New York and London, 1894; Epochs of American History, 
vol. HL 



INDEX. 



Adams, John Quincv, on Calhoun, ii, 12; on Louisiana pur- 
chase, 14; on Jackson's proclamation, 119. 
Alabama, recommends national convention, 119. 
Alien Law, protest against, 23. 

Bank, National, South Carolina opposed, 3 ; Calhoun's views, 

145. 
Benton, Thomas H., East and West, 87. 
" Brutus." See TurnbuU. 
Butler, Pierce, opposes high duties, 4; threatens "dissolution," 4 ; 

delegate to Convention, 25. 

Calhoun, John C, connection with nullification, 2; tariff of 1816, 
5; leadership, 6; early liberal policy, (i^T^ on interpretation of 
Constitution, 9, 10; on Louisiana purchase, 10; on protection, 
10, II, 12; inconsistency on tariff, 13; on slavery, 13; on Mis- 
souri Compromise, 13, 14; regrets not having followed Randolph, 
13 ; inconsistency on force of precedent, 14, 15; fundamental 
principle, 17; casting vote against tariff of 1827, 34; poHcy re- 
jected by South Carolina, 59; follows South Carolina, 60; influ- 
ence in South Carolina, 60, 64; letter to Garnett, 60-63, i43; 
on distribution of powers, 61 ; on implied powers, 62 ; his prece- 
dents, 62 ; on sectionalism, 63 ; speaks in Augusta and Abbeville, 
63 ; date of his change of view, 63-64 ; influenced by " The 
Crisis," 73 ; connection with "Exposition of 1828," 77-79; eyes 
opened in 1828, 78; begins to seek a remedy, "j^-^ visited by 
nuUifiers in 1828, 78 ; expounder of nullification, 80; role in the 
controversy, 80; correspondence with Hamilton, 80, 81; on 
nature of Constitution, 82; on relations of individuals, 82; on 
State as arbiter, 83, 84; on reserved rights, 84; on Supreme 
Court as arbiter, 84, 85 ; on coercion, 85 ; toast in reply to Jack- 
son, 97 ; accepts Compromise Act, 125, 126; indicates his terms, 
126; on Clay's reasons for compromising, 127; opposes Force 
Bill, 128, 129; attends Nullification Convention, 131; letter on 
State rights (1824), 143. 



1 62 INDEX. 

Charleston, S. C, meeting to suspend Nullification Ordinance, 122. 

Cheves, Langdon, leadership, 6; against Calhoun's views, 27; 
on functions of Supreme Court, 28 ; admits right of secession, 
139; proposes union of Southern States, 139; thinks threat of 
secession would avail, 139; in Nashville Convention, 140. 

Citadel, the, turned over to the State, 116, 121. 

Clay, Henry, introduces Compromise Act, 125. 

Clayton, John M., stand on Compromise, 126. 

Coercion, Calhoun on, 85 ; threatened by Jackson, 116, 117. 

Colcock, C. J., presents resolution, 122. 

Columbia, S. C, Nullification Convention, 107. 

Compromise Act, introduced, 125; accepted by Calhoun, 125, 126; 
passed, 127; signed, 127; South Carolina on proposed repeal, 
136 ; South Carolina considers it a treaty, 154. 

Constitution, the, theory of, shifting in South Carolina, 16; not 
logically perfect, 17 ; Calhoun's theory in 1824, 144. See Sover- 
eignty of States. 

Convention, national Constitutional, South Carolina delegates to, 
25 ; recommended by Georgia and Alabama, 1 19. 

Convention, Hartford. See Hartford Convention. 

Convention, Nashville, (1848), 140. 

Convention, Nullification, (1832), movement to call, 98; State elec- 
tion of 1832, 107; recommended by Governor, 107; call issued, 
107, 108; objects, 108; election of delegates to, loS ; Union 
leaders in, 108; Hamilton president, T09; Nullification leaders 
in, 109; Ordinance adopted, no; Ordinance signed, no; pro- 
ceedings, no; reassembles, 130; Hamilton resigns presidency, 
131 ; Hayne elected president, 131 ; Leigh and Calhoun invited, 
131 ; rescinds Ordinance, 131 ; adopts Anti-Force Bill Ordinance, 
132. 

Convention, State Rights, (of 1831), 104; (of 1832), 104, 105. 

Convention, Union, called to meet in Columbia, n4. 

Cooper, Dr. Thomas, opinions of Jefferson and Adams on, 56; 
career, 56, 57; lectures and tracts, 57 ; on impHed powers, 57; 
influence, 58 ; sensational speech, in Columbia, 58 ; value of 
union, 138. 

"Co-States," appealed to, by Jackson, nS ; response of, n9; con- 
demn nullification and secession, ng. 

Cotton, production and price, (1821 to 1854), 44. 

" Crisis," the, publication, 49; purport, 49-51, 71, 72 ; influence on 
Calhoun, 72, 73. See Brutus and TurnbuU. 

Davis, Warren R., denounces Jackson, 129, 130; denounces 
Force Bill, 129. 

Drayton, William, oration at Unionist Celebration (183 1), 99; ad- 
mits right of secession, 139. 



INDEX. 163 

" Exposition," the, printed and circulated, 86 ; replied to, by 
Webster, 89. See Calhoun. 

Federalist, The, appeal to, by nullifiers, 16 ; not a systematic 
treatise, 16; anticipates Calhoun, 17; on sovereignty, 17; on 
adoption of Constitution, 19; on division of powers, 19; against 
Calhoun, 20 ; on remedies for federal aggressions, 20, 21. 

Foote Resolution on PubHc Lands, debate on, 86-96 : terms, 87. 

Force Bill, the, introduced, 128; opposition to, in Congress, 128- 
130; signed, 127; South Carolina nullifies, 149. 

Garnet, R. S., letter from Calhoun, 60-63, H3- 

Georgia, controversy with federal government, 16; disobedient, 

24, 25 ; Jackson's sympathy, 25 ; recommends plan for National 

Convention, 119. 

Hamilton, Alexander, on Sovereignty, 17; against secession, 
21. 

Hamilton, James, Jr., against State sovereignty, 28; confusion on 
nature of the Union, 31, 54, 55 ; on decline of South Carolina, 
46, 47, note ; denounces protection, 54 ; eulogizes Jackson, 65, 
66; criticises Adams, 66; advises withdrawal from Congress, 73; 
on helplessness of the federal government, 74; on nullification, 
80; speech at State Rights Celebration, 1831, 103 ; on Jackson's 
letter, 103; calls extra session of legislature, 107; recommends 
a Convention, 107; sketch of, 109, n. ; president of the Conven- 
tion, 109; directs attention to the ordinance, in, 112; succeeded 
by Hayne, 112; on resolution to suspend ordinance, 122; ad- 
vises secession in certain contingencies, 123; recalls Nullifica- 
tion Convention, 130; resigns presidency, 131 ; on Jackson's 
two measures of justice, 133; resolution to resist, 137; affirms 
secession, 138. 

Hammond, James H., on South Carolina's failure to resort to nul- 
lification in 1842, 136, 137 ; on protection, 154. 

Harper, Robert Goodloe, on Supreme Court, 29. 

Harper, William, on Supreme Court, 29, 30 ; on nullification, 80; 
expounder of nullification, 80 ; looks forward to secession, 140. 

Hartford Convention, execrated in South Carolina, 25. 

Hayne, Robert G., on sovereignty, 31, 94; declares against submis- 
sion, 31; on tariff of 1824, 55; eulogizes Jackson, 67,68; on Foote's 
resolution, 87 ; on evil of consolidation, 88 ; on evils of a national 
surplus, 88 ; resents Webster's attack, 90; sketch of, 90, 91, n. ; 
rejoinder to Webster, 91, 92 ; third speech on the resolution, 94; 
effect on nullifiers, 95 ; validity of his argument, 96 ; oration at 
State Rights Celebration, 102; on tariff of 1832, 106; reads 
an exposition in NuUification Convention, 110; gubernatorial 



1 64 INDEX. 

inaugural address, 112; counter proclamation, 120; attitude of 

defence, 121; president of the Nullification Convention, 131; on 

outcome of Nullification struggle, 131. 
Heileman, Major J. F., warned against surprise, 115; receives 

instructions from Washington, 116. 
Henagan, Governor, on protection, 151. 
Huger, Daniel E., at Unionist Celebration, 99; speech, loi. 

Internal Improvements, Calhoun's views on, 146. 

Interposition, advised by Governor Taylor, 76. 

Intervention, by States, early expression of McDuffie against, 28 ; 
resolution of State legislature against, 30; advocated by Turn- 
bull, 71; declared absurd by Jackson, 117, 118. 

Jackson, Andrew, eulogized by Hamilton, 6s, 66 ; hope of South 
Carolina, 65, 66, 67, 68 ; nominated by South Carolina legisla- 
ture, 67 ; attitude on nullification misrepresented to South Caro- 
lina, 97 ; sounded by the nuUifiers, 97 ; toast at the Jefferson 
birthday dinner, 97 ; letter to the Unionist Committee, loi, 102 ; 
his letter before South Carolina legislature, 103, 104 ; instructions 
to the Collector, 115; orders Scott, vessels, and troops to Charles- 
ton, 115; preparations to coerce, 115; warns Heileman, 115; 
opinion of Calhoun, 116; letters to Poinsett, 116; promises coer- 
cion, 116, 117; calls attention of Congress, 117; issues nullifi- 
cation proclamation, 117; receives offers of volunteers, 117; 
displeased with Virginia, 119; approves plan for reducing duties, 
124; strengthens his recommendations after election of 1832, 
125; determined to maintain federal supremacy, 127; asks more 
authority, 127, 128; signs Compromise and Force Act, 130. 

Jay, John, on Sovereigntj', 18. 

Jefferson, Thomas, connection with Kentucky Resolutions, 23 ; 
cited as authority by Hayne, 92; cited by Calhoun, 145, 146. 

Legare, Hugh S., on decline of South Carolina, 46; obtuseness 
on slavery, 48; speech at Unionist Celebration, loi ; against 
nullification, loi ; on tyranny of the nullifiers, 114. 

Leigh, Benjamin Watkins, commissioner from Virginia to South 
Carolina, 130; invited within NuUification Convention, 131. 

Lewis, Dixon H., at Hayne-Webster debate, 92. 

Livingston, Edward, part in nullification proclamation, 117. 

Lowndes, William, leadership, 6; on functions of Supreme Court, 29. 

McDuffie, George, on consolidation, 8; on distribution of powers, 
8, 9 ; condemns State sovereignty, 28 ; champions reform in 
electing President, 33; explains his action on tariff of 1828, 34; 
accepts nullification doctrine reluctantly, 36; opposes the Com- 



INDEX. 165 

promise Act, 36 ; as an orator, 36 ; willing to stand on right of 
revolution, 36 ; character and principles, 36, 37, 38 ; career, 37, n.; 
on protection, 38; burden on the South, 39; export tax theory, 
39 ; on tyranny of the majority, 40 ; advocates minority rule, 41 ; 
on helplessness of the South, 41 ; inconsistency on slave labor, 
41, n. ; on condition of Southern States, 42 ; fallacy in export 
tax argument, 43 ; admits having exaggerated influence of the 
tariff, 44; ignores law of supply and demand, 44; obtuseness on 
slavery, 48; suggests non-intercourse, 70, 71; on nullification, 
80; address to people of the United States, no; bill to reduce 
duties, 124; protests against Force Bill, 130; ridicules Anti- 
Force Bill Ordinance, 132; plan for tariff reduction, 134; looks 
to secession as final resort, 140, 141. 

Maclay, William, on Pierce Butler, 4. 

Madison, James, on sovereignty, 17, 18; on adoption of the Con- 
stitution, 19, n. ; in Federalist, 21; in Virginia Resolutions, 21, 
22 ; against Calhoun's construction of the Virginia and Kentucky 
Resolutions, 24; cited by Hayne, 92 ; cited by Calhoun, 145, 146. 

Manning, Richard J., on electing the President, 33. 

Marshall, John, on method of adopting the Constitution, 19, n. 

Militia in South Carolina, organization suggested by Governor 
Hamilton, 112; State Act, 113; enrolling and drilling of, 121. 

Mitchell, Thomas R., on tariff of 1828, 34; breaks away from Cal- 
houn, 53, 54 ; speech at Unionist Celebration, loi. 

Minority Rule, advocated, 24, 41, 42. 

Monroe, James, cited by Calhoun, 145, 146. 

New England, during war of 1812, 16; rebuked by South Caro- 
lina, 25. 

Non-intercourse, suggested by McDufiie, 70, 71 ; adopted at Edge- 
field, 71 ; approved by Calhoun, 71. 

Nullification, not due to personal spite, 2; responsibility for, 15; 
diflFerent from interposition, 24; early history of South Carolina 
against, 25; leaders, 70; in "The Crisis," 72 ; second formula- 
tion, 75; variety of forms assumed, 79, 80; gains ground, 86; 
national interest in, 86; struggle begins, 86; Unionist Celebra- 
tion in Charleston, 98-102; Legare and Petigru against, loi ; 
State Rights Party Celebration, 102, 103 ; Jackson's letter, 103, 
104; State Rights Convention of 1831, 104; State Rights Con- 
vention of 1832, 104, 105; State Rights leaders. 105; tracts 
circulated, 105; election of 1832 carried by nullifiers, 107; Con- 
vention called, 107, 108; preparations of Unionists to resist, 114; 
preparations of Federal authorities, 115, 116; nullifiers threat- 
ened by Jackson, 116; proclamation issued by Jackson, 117; 
reception by the Legislature, 119, 120; nullification condemned 
by the "Co-States," 119 ; counter proclamation issued by Hayne, 



l66 INDEX. 

120; the critical date (February i, 1833), 121; parties face to 
face, 121; nullifiers prepare for defence, 121; Ordinance sus- 
pended, 122; prosp2Cts of an adjustment, 124; Force Bill intro- 
duced, 12S; Virginia's commissioner, 130; Convention recalled, 
130; reassembles, 130; ordinance rescinded, 131; who was the 
victor, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136; Force Bill nullified, 132, 149; 
tariff schedule demanded by nullifiers, 134, 135; failure of nulli- 
fication, 13s, 136; doctrine reaffirmed, 136, 137; effects of the 
struggle, 137-141 ; right reaffirmed (1S42), 153. 

Oath, enjoined on State officers, in. 

Ordinance, Anti-Force Bill, adopted by the Convention, 132; ridi- 
culed by McDuffie, 132. 

Ordinance, Nullification, introduced, no; adopted, no; signing 
of, no; provisions, oath, ni ; when to take effect, ni ; seces- 
sion, in; reassembling, n i ; fast-day, n i ; suspension requested 
by Virginia, n9; suspended, 122; reasons for suspension, 122, 
123, 124; nature of action suspending, 123; rescinded, 131. 

Petigru, James L., speech at Unionist Celebration, loi; on pro- 
tection, loi and note. 

Pinckney, Charles, delegate to Constitutional Convention, 25 ; 
favors strong national government, 25 ; condemns State sov- 
ereignty, 26 ; favors Congressional negative, 26. 

Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth, delegate to the Constitutional 
Convention, 25 ; favors strong national government, 26. 

Pinckney, Lieutenant-Governor Charles C, presides over meeting 
which suspends the Ordinance, 122. 

Pinckney, Henry L., speech at State Rights Celebration, 103. 

Poinsett, Joel R., on Thomas Cooper, 58 ; confidential agent of 
Jackson, n5, n6. 

Proclamation, counter, issued by Governor Hayne, 120. 

Proclamation, Nullification, character and sentiments, n;, nS; 
before the South Carolina legislature, np, 120. 

Protection, policy of. See Tariff. 

Randolph, John, offers services to the nullifiers, 120, 121. 
Replevin Act, passed, n2; terms, n2. 
Revenue Collections Bill. See Force Bill. 
Rhett, Robert Barnwell. See Robert Barnwell Smith. 
Richardson, Governor J. P., on protection. 152. 
Rutledge, John, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 25 ; 
favors strong national government, 25; on Supreme Court, 29. 

Scott, General Winfield, ordered to Charleston, w^. 
Secession, right of, under the Confederation, denied, 18, 19; re- 



INDEX. 167 

jected by the Federalist, 21; entertained by Turnbull, 50, 51; 
views of Governor Taylor, 69 ; discussed by South Carolina 
Congressmen, 73, 74; asserted by South Carolina (1831), 104; 
affirmed in ordinance, in ; denied by Jackson, 118; condemned 
by the " Co-States," 119 ; affirmed by Charleston meeting, 122; 
attitude of South Carolina, 137; Cooper's speech, 138; South 
Carolina legislature on (1832), 138 ; asserted by James Hamilton, 
138; in "Exposition," 138; compared with nulHfication, 139; ad- 
mitted by Drayton and Cheves, 139; advocated in South Caro- 
lina, 140, 141 ; looked to as an ultimate remedy, 140, 141 ; logical 
outcome of nullification, 141 ; well defined in South Carolina in 
1830, 141. 

Sedition Law, protest against, 23. 

" Sidney," on nature of sovereignty, 31 ; formulates nullification, 75 ; 
possible relation with Calhoun, 76. 

Simkins, Eldred, condemns strict construction, 7, 8 ; on consolida- 
tion, 8. 

Slavery: slave trade odious, 13 ; "bulwark of human liberty," 14; 
prevents manufacturing in the South, 45 ; economic evils, 47, 
48 ; public attention directed to, 48 ; an element in nullifica- 
tion controversy, 48 ; responsible for irreconcilable conflict, 48 ; 
responsible for Southern unanimity against protection, 48; 
threatened, 49; not a subject for discussion, 50; South Carolina 
Legislature on, 51, 52. 

Smith, Robert Barnwell [Rhett], address to the people of the United 
States, 74; on failure of nullification, 136; looks to secession, 
140. 

Smith, William, advocates minority rule, 42 ; organizes opposition 
to Calhoun, 56; elected to South Carolina Legislature, 59; ad- 
vises reliance on ballot-box, 68 ; political ups and downs, 69. 

South Carolina, records defective, 2 ; early attitude on federal 
government, 2; opposition to federal policy appears, 2, 3; 
not always represented by Calhoun, 2, 3 ; protests against high 
duties, 3 ; consistency on high duties, 3 ; admits constitutionality 
of protection, 4; favors protection to her hemp growers, 4 ; in- 
consistency on protection, 4, 5 ; votes on tariff of 1816, 5 ; dissat- 
isfaction with Calhoun, 5; turning point in her course, 5 ; liberal 
period, 6; federalist in sentiment, 6; supports Jefferson, 6; 
attitude on interpretation, 7 ; sanctions implied powers, 7 ; under- 
standing as to Union, 16; on Virginia and Kentucky Resolu- 
tions, 24; delegates to Constitutional Convention, 25; rebukes 
New England for narrowness, 25 ; execrates the Hartford Con- 
vention, 25 ; early indifference to Nullification. 25 ; on Supreme 
Court, 29; resolutions against State intervention, 30; submission 
impossible, 31; disappointed over Jackson's defeat, 33; griev- 
ances, 35 ; industrial and political decline, 45, 46, 47; resolutions 



1 68 INDEX. 

on slavery, 51, 52; change of policy, 53; committed to strict 
construction, 59 ; discontent over federal aggressions, 65 ; looks 
to Jackson for relief, 65-68 ; nominates Jackson for President, 67 ; 
movement for Nullification Convention, 98; election of 1830, 98 ; 
celebration of unionists, 98-102; celebration of nuUifiers, 102, 
103; legislature on Jackson's letter, 103, 104; State Rights Con- 
vention, 104, 105; election of 1832, 107; legislature called, 107; 
Nullification Convention called, 107, 108; legislature assembles, 
III ; message of Governor Hamilton, in; Replevin Act, 112; 
Militia Act, 113 ; Test Oath Act, 113 ; indignant over movement 
to repeal Compromise Act, 136; reaffirms doctrine of nullifica- 
tion, 136; alienated from the Union, 137; Ordinance nullifying 
Force Bill (1833), 149; Henagan's protest, 151 ; Richardson's 
protest, 152 ; nullification reaffirmed (1842), 153; protest against 
tariff of 1S42, 154. 

Sovereignty, State, not upheld by Madison and Hamilton, 17, 19; 
condemned, 18, 26, 28; conception of, confused, 31, 75, 94 and 
note; denied by Jackson, 118: Calhoun's theory (1824), 143. 

Supreme Court, the arbiter, 20; functions, 29, 30, 31, 76, 84, 85. 

Tariff, opposition in South Carolina, 3 ; South Carolina votes 
on bill of 1816, 5 ; discontent in South Carolina, 33 ; increase 
demanded by protectionists, 33 ; bill of 1827 killed by Calhoun, 
34; Harrisburg Convention, 34; bill of 1828, 34; protests 
from South Carolina, 35 ; effects on South Carolina, 35 ; influ- 
ence exaggerated, 44; injurious to the South, 45; selfishness 
of the majority, 45 ; South Carolina's first constitutional objec- 
tion, 54; South Carolina men on bill of 1824, 54, 55; protests 
from South Carolina, 58, 59; South Carolina's action on bill of 
1828, 73 ; Act of 1832, 106; prospects of satisfactory adjustment, 
124; modifications recommended by Jackson, 124; bearing of 
election of 1832 on, 124; Baldwin's plan for settling, 124; McDuf- 
fie's plan, 124; Verplanck Bill introduced, 125; Compromise 
Act passed, 125; Calhoun's plan, 126; schedule demanded by 
nullifiers, 134, 135; South Carolina protests, (1840), 151, (1841), 
152, (1844), 154. 

Taylor, Governor John, advises reliance on the ballot-box, 69; 
refuses to call legislature, 75; message to legislature, 76, TT^ 
advises interposition, 76 ; on Supreme Court, 76, 77. 

Test Oath Act, passed, 113; protests of Unionists, 114. 

Tucker, Sterling, opposes high duties, 3. 

Turnbull, Robert J., sketch of, 49; writes "The Crisis," 49; on 
consolidation, 50 ; on implied powers, 50 ; on slavery, 50 ; pre- 
sents alternative of silence or secession, 50, 51; views on slav- 
ery accepted by legislature, 51; advocates intervention, 71 ; on 
nature of the Union, 72 ; on Supreme Court, 72 ; gives first 



INDEX. 169 

formulation of nullification doctrine, 72, 73 ; speech at State 
Rights celebration, 103 ; on Jackson's letter, 103 ; on the out- 
come of nullification, 131, 132. 

Unionists, the, leaders of, 69, 70; celebration, 98-102 ; protest 
against tyranny of the nuUifiers, 113, 114; Convention of, called, 
114; leaders in touch with Jackson, 115; organize to resist the 
nuUifiers, 115. 

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, appealed to, by nuUi- 
fiers, 16, 22; on nature of the Union, 22; on the arbiter, 22; 
misconstrued by nuUifiers, 23, 24 ; resolution of the South Caro- 
lina Legislature in 1827 in line with, 77; cited by Hayne, 92. 

Virginia commissioner to South Carolina, 119; requests suspen- 
sion of the Ordinance, 119; on South Carolina's interpretation 
of her resolutions of 1798, 119; petitions Congress to modify the 
tariff, 119. 

Webster, Daniel, brings on nullification debate of 1830, 86, 88; 
attacks Hayne and the nuUifiers, 88; object of attack, 88,89; 
" Great Reply " premeditated, 89 ; familiarity with the " Exposi- 
tion," 89; "Great Reply" really to Calhoun, 89; characteristics 
of " Great Reply," 93 ; on nature of the Constitution, 93 ; on the 
State as arbiter, 93 ; on remedies for federal aggressions, 94 ; 
third speech on nullification, 95 ; effects of his three speeches, 
95, 96 ; services rendered, 96; validity of his argument, 96; re- 
plies to Calhoun on the Force Bill, 129. 

Wilkins, WiUiam, introduces the Force Bill, 128. 

WiUiams, David R., leadership, 6; counsels moderation, 69. 

Wilson, J. L., on decUne of South Carolina, 46. 

Wilson, Woodrow, on Jackson's hold on the people, 68. 



1[ 8 
'7 5=.^ 



Harvard Historical Studies. 

Published under the Direction of the Department of History and 
Government from the Income of the Henry Warren Torrey 
Fujtd. 



THIS SERIES will comprise works of original research 
selected from the recent writings of teachers and 
graduate students in the Department of History and Gov- 
ernment in Harvard University. The series will also include 
collections of documents, bibliographies, reprints of rare 
tracts, etc. The monographs will appear at irregular inter- 
vals; but it is hoped that at least three volumes will be 
published annually. 

The volumes of the series published tn l8p6 are: 

I. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE- 
TRADE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
1638-1870. By W. E. B. Du Bois, Ph.D., Professor in 
Wilberforce University. 

11. THE CONTEST OVER THE RATIFICATION OF THE 
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THE STATE OF 
MASSACHUSETTS. By S. B. Harding, A.M., Assistant 
Professor of History in Indiana University. 

III. A CRITICAL STUDY OF NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH 
CAROLINA. By D. F. Houston, A.M., Adjunct Pro- 
fessor of Political Science in the University of Texas. 

The following volumes will be published in l8gj ' 

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRITISH MUNICIPAL HISTORY. 
By Charles Gross, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History in 
Harvard University. 

THE LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PARTIES IN THE 
NORTHWEST. By Theodore C. Srhth, Ph.D. 

NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE 
UNITED STATES. By Frederick W. Dallinger, A.M. 



LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., Publishers, 

91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. 
LONDON AND BOMBAY. 



708 



0<t 






^^ 



^^ 









o5 -^c^ 



. ,# 



-."^ %i. 



■^^^ / 



'^^ V'' 



^_ \'^-<< 



"^, .^^^ 



J^ 'H 









,-^'' 



"^A v^' 



■S"- ^. 






...^^^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDESElfi34b 



